Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Actually no, we know well what he was wearing on his feet. You don't feel committed to a narrative - Do you mean by that you have no idea what really happened?
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Justinian2
- Start date
- Status
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
So you agree that it's insane?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,600
asked to leave
EDT
Recall also that RoseMontague was weakly pro-guilt when she began commenting on this case.
RoseMontague was asked to leave (and banned, IIRC). Then when PMF split into two sites, she found that her banning was lifted. I seem to recall that she was asked to leave again, which might set some kind of record. BTW, I see that PMF is discussing Dr. Hampikian. Most of what has been written there is untrue or misleading, and I offer this only as a friendly caution to fellow JREF members.
EDT
Recall also that RoseMontague was weakly pro-guilt when she began commenting on this case.
Last edited:
I agree that it's silly. You said that the post was succumbing to nutjobbery. We both know that the poster is exaggerating for comic effect. I can refer you to pro-innocence posters who are well nutty.
No. It doesn't particularly interest me. Even if I was, I don't see why I would have to be committed to one particular story of the crime. The pro-innocence folks are committed to one narrative, because Amanda and Raffaele are supposed to be telling the truth. Why should I, Mignini aor any of the people who aren't convinced of innocence be committed to a narrative?
Last edited:
She seems to be getting treated no more rudely than I have been on pro-Innocence forums. When I first posted on IIP posters asked Bruce to ban me. Its a long while since I've posted there. What is the current balance of pro-Innocence to pro-Guilt posters? Is there good debate between the camps?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't quite understand that comment. I'm just lurking here and I don't have a firm opinion on this case, however I've been much more persuaded by the case for innocence as it has been presented in these threads.
If what I have read about Meredith's intestinal contents is correct, it appears that the time of death is much earlier than originally alleged, and at a time when Amanda and Raffaele appear to have had an alibi. If the original case was that Amanda took an active part in the murder or was actually the prime mover, but there is no evidence that she was in the murder room at all, I have to say it's looking shaky.
Clearly the girl is something of a fruitcake. Stoned, I think was the word. But bizarre behaviour cannot prove guilt in the absence of credible evidence. I'm not seeing the credible evidence here at the moment.
So what makes anyone certain of a guilty verdict, beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt seems to be all over this thing.
Rolfe.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
I don't see the comical effect here. I remember such exaggerating was popular in media and it wasn't used for comical effect, not at all. We're talking about a real living person here who is in that very moment fighting to clear herself and for her freedom and I don't think she deserves such treatment from any silly person on the internet.
Fell free to quote nutjobs from the pro-innocence side. I'm all for rational approach to the topic and I think weeding out fringe elements can be only beneficial to the case.
Last edited:
Rolfe,
For myself, I don't see how anybody on the Internet can be certain about this case either way beyond reasonable doubt, or anything like. Somehow lots of people are. I've spent too much time reading about this. Others have spent far more. How they manage it I don't know.
For myself, I don't see how anybody on the Internet can be certain about this case either way beyond reasonable doubt, or anything like. Somehow lots of people are. I've spent too much time reading about this. Others have spent far more. How they manage it I don't know.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, there has been a trial, and justice is supposed to be open and transparent. If the process and results of that trial have left a substantial number of reasonable, interested people with real doubt about the proof of guilt, I'd say that's trouble.
ETA: You say you're not convinced of innocence. Nobody has to be convinced of innocence for a not guilty verdict to be appropriate. There merely has to be reasonable doubt. My own feeling is that I'd plump for "they didn't do it" on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence as presented in this thread. Why do you feel it's necessary to be "convinced of innocence" before you take the view that the conviction is unsafe?
Rolfe.
ETA: You say you're not convinced of innocence. Nobody has to be convinced of innocence for a not guilty verdict to be appropriate. There merely has to be reasonable doubt. My own feeling is that I'd plump for "they didn't do it" on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence as presented in this thread. Why do you feel it's necessary to be "convinced of innocence" before you take the view that the conviction is unsafe?
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Peoples humor varies. Doubtless you weren't the intended audience.
Agreed. At that point it was out of ignorance. Things have moved on.
Probably not. Equally, they think she's guilty. If you analyse this, most of it is kind of distateful. A few people are actively doing something to help Amanda and Raffaele. Why are the rest of us here? Clearly we're getting something from the fascinating details of the ruin of all these people lives. I can't imagine the Kerchers get a whole lot of joy from this case getting chewed over endlessly.
There's not a whole lot of point. It's not hard to find.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Does it mean that you have more than one that are perfectly good?
I can speak for myself but I'm leaning to the one that fits the evidence.
When on one side there is a simple narrative that encompasses the evidence and doesn't stretch plausibility boundaries the other side looks rather bad when they're not committed to any. It comes to mind it's because none such exist. Mignini certainly grasps it as he had been committed to various narratives during those almost 4 years.
Is it a representative sample of people who have spent hundreds of hours reading, blogging and posting on the case?
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Maybe Mignini has one helluva sense of humor too.
Have you by any chance read the Monster of Florence? I highly recommend it. Besides being a very interesting read, it is a true glimpse into the inner workings if ILE.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
The beyond reasonable doubt rule should be unidirectional in it's workings, I think. Given the publicity and criticism this case receives it's up to Perugian authorities to dispel the doubts. Yet so far everything that happened only cast even more doubt.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't know what that question is supposed to mean. I said I was just lurking on the thread. (Partly it's out of jealousy, jealousy of the existence of the guilters. I can't get even a semblance of a rational argument for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi being "the Lockerbie bomber", such is the illusory nature of the case against him, and the threads just sink. So I come hear to see what happens when there's at least a degree of discussion.)
On these threads there are a number of people who make cogent arguments suggesting there is genuine, serious, credible doubt about the safety of the Knox/Sollecito convictions. Nobody arguing against them has been able to make a credible case for guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - and that is the standard it has to be proved to.
It doesn't matter who the people are on either side, it's the quality of their discussion that matters.
Rolfe.
I haven't thought about it very hard. There was a challenge a while back. I put 10 seconds thought into it and posted a scenario. People didn't like it.
The evidence uniquely determines a single scenario?
The defence are supposed to have access to people who can tell them what the single "true" scenario is supposed to be. Where they can't rely on them things are harder. Tell me the single true scenario for how the dna reading on the bra clasp occurred, or do you allow yourself multiple scenarios there?
None that you will accept exist. The thing about believing they are innocent is that you don't accept scenarios where they are guilty as plausible, though clearly others do. In any case, the prosecution and the "guilters" don't have to provide a scenario. There just has to be enough space for a scenario to exist.
And why shouldn't he?
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Definitely.
In my opinion keeping this case afloat and in the media spotlight is the only thing that can save Amanda and Raffaele. I wholeheartedly welcome recent own goals by the prosecution - the CNN interview, Frank Sfarzo's harassment and the affair with perugia-shock. There's a visible change of tide in the media that is encouraging. As for the Kerchers, I'm afraid they can only thank Perugian authorities for their ordeal. The whole thing could've been over in 2008 with Guede's sentence. And I hope they will see and make them pay.
I hadn't meant to include you in that. Certainly there are some people who have a passing knowledge of the case who think she's innocent. There are lots in fact. Does people with a passing knowledge of the case being convinced mean much?
Credible to you. There have been posters who have been convinced and by no means all of them obviously stupid or insane. Clearly one must judge the case oneself, but the pro-innocence posters dont have all the sanity their own way. A lot of advocacy has been done and they outnumber the pro-guilt posters by quite a long way. The other thing is that making such a case would be quite difficult on this forum. It is too noisy and you'd get bogged down as multiple pro-innocence posters raised objections. That's why PMF is valuable. If you really are interested I suggest PMing a pro-guilt poster who seems like they might be reasonable. Some of the better conversations I've had on this have been via PM.
I don't think a long considered pro-guilt argument is possible on this forum. Not unless it was delivered as an essay. The case took the better part of a year (admittedly they by no means sat every day). The argument for guilt might not be easy to sum up.
Last edited:
Rolfe,
It's not strictly speaking an argument about guilt or innocence, but it's always seemed like an interesting distinction between the two sides how evidence is presented. PMF is a fantastic resource because one of the main activities of the most hated pro-guilters is collecting and translating material on the case. The pro-innocence camp said they were translating the motivations report, PMF did it. The amount of material is impressive. You can seperate off the data collection function from the position taken on the case by the pro-guilters and it is impressive. The pro-innocence camp sites are advocacy sites. Material is presented in order to make their case, not to make all the material available so that you can judge for yourself. The pro-innocence camp has always had lots of material available to them and they pick and chose what to show. I don't mean to say that there is something desperately significant being hidden. But it is a distinction that has always struck me about the two camps and probably why I feel more at home with the pro-guilters.
It's not strictly speaking an argument about guilt or innocence, but it's always seemed like an interesting distinction between the two sides how evidence is presented. PMF is a fantastic resource because one of the main activities of the most hated pro-guilters is collecting and translating material on the case. The pro-innocence camp said they were translating the motivations report, PMF did it. The amount of material is impressive. You can seperate off the data collection function from the position taken on the case by the pro-guilters and it is impressive. The pro-innocence camp sites are advocacy sites. Material is presented in order to make their case, not to make all the material available so that you can judge for yourself. The pro-innocence camp has always had lots of material available to them and they pick and chose what to show. I don't mean to say that there is something desperately significant being hidden. But it is a distinction that has always struck me about the two camps and probably why I feel more at home with the pro-guilters.
- Status