Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
But not, apparently, through evidence available to members posting in this thread.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


And not, apparently, through the evidence listed in the judge's own sentencing report - although there's a hard-core of groupthinkers who maintain that for some reason Massei neglects to mention some dynamite evidence which proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (evidence which all the court reporters also seem to have missed during the trial).
 
shuttlt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious here? I mean honestly? Do you really think that PMF lays it all out there and lets you decide for yourself? They allow no one that disagrees with them to post. They post lie after lie without no recourse. I know you are the one that once claimed that you just like to argue online so I don't expect you to ever resolve anything you discuss but your current opinion of the websites that discuss this case is a little mind boggling.

I agree that PMF is good for translation. If you read the entire Massei report with an open mind you will see that it's good for the defense. PMF did the same thing with the CNN Mignini interview. When you read the entire transcript it puts Mignini in a very poor light. So a big thank you to PMF for all of their translation efforts.

You say that sites like IIP post what they want to post. What info would you like me to post? We post hundreds of photos and video along with presentations that were presented in court by defense experts. IIP will not post any crime scene or autopsy photos of Meredith but other than that, everything we have is available. We make absolutely no attempt to hide anything. The truth is clear for anyone willing to see it. There is no need to hide anything.

IIP also has a public forum where all opinions are welcome.

Do you read the posts in the general discussion thread on PMF? Do you see the vile hatred that comes from that group? Do you honestly feel at home with them?

You will see dozens of theories on PMF of how the crime played out. All theories are welcome there just as long as they end with Amanda Knox being guilty.

IIP has one theory of the the crime and has never waivered from that theory. This crime was brutal but not complicated.
 
Rolfe said:
But not, apparently, through evidence available to members posting in this thread.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
I haven't been trying to reach a judgement on that. Perhaps some people think so. Most of the stronger pro-guilt posters dropped off the thread long ago. You should have joined in mid-2010.
 
Rolfe said:
The trial transcript is 3,000 pages of single-spaced 10-point Arial. I haven't read it all myself.
Click to expand...

Well at least there is trial transcript to read.

But see, the first thing is to understand why someone believes a particular thing. If it's just that someone else says so, then there's not much discussion until they get a bit more educated. If in this case the education is not to be had, then how can anyone believe personally in anything "beyond reasonable doubt"?
Click to expand...

Ok, but where is that "someone else says so" coming from? In this case 95% is from the media, not the court.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Maybe, maybe not. Without being able to read the actual autopsy report who is to say.
Click to expand...


Q.E.D.

(And incidentally, this position would require a belief that not only were the many press reporters in the court either mistaken or lying in their reporting of the autopsy testimony, but also that the lead judge, Massei, was either mistaken or lying - in exactly the same way as the reporters - in his account of the autopsy testimony in his sentencing document. You really couldn't make it up...)
 
Alt+F4 said:
I have no dog in this fight, I don't know any of the people involved. What intrigues me is that people can say that RS and AK are 100% innocent when they haven't read the trial transcript and don't speak/read Italian. I find it disturbing that folks think they can determine guilt or innocence based on what they can Google.
Click to expand...


I don't understand how anyone (including the immediate families) can say that Knox and Sollecito are 100% innocent either. I certainly don't say this. I say that they certainly should not have been found guilty. Do you understand the difference?
 
katy_did said:
Oh, I know this one! 'Beyond reasonable doubt' doesn't mean some doubt is allowed, it means a reasonable person should have no doubt of guilt. So it really means beyond any doubt, for the reasonable person. This is as I understand it anyway.
Click to expand...


You're right, and shuttlt is wrong.

It's amazing how many people ignorantly believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means something like: "you're allowed a little bit of doubt - a "reasonable" amount - and still return a guilty verdict, but any more doubt than that and you should acquit". It doesn't mean that at all.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I have no dog in this fight, I don't know any of the people involved. What intrigues me is that people can say that RS and AK are 100% innocent when they haven't read the trial transcript and don't speak/read Italian. I find it disturbing that folks think they can determine guilt or innocence based on what they can Google.
Click to expand...

500 posts (estimated by you) with your name on them suggests otherwise.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Are you being serious here? I mean honestly? Do you really think that PMF lays it all out there and lets you decide for yourself? They allow no one that disagrees with them to post.
Click to expand...
Bruce. Don't be so quick to anger. I said that PMF seperate the data gathering from their viewpoint on the case. Are their "in their own words" pages lies, or are they true reflections of what was said?

Bruce Fisher said:
They post lie after lie without no recourse. I know you are the one that once claimed that you just like to argue online so I don't expect you to ever resolve anything you discuss but your current opinion of the websites that discuss this case is a little mind boggling.
Click to expand...
They are a pro-guilt forum, no question. Some people manage to get along over there with other views, but arguing guilt/innocence isn't really what that forum is about any longer, if it ever was. Things would get confrontational and other discussions that they want to have couldn't happen. Perhaps their defensiveness goes beyond that.

It's not as if they are alone in having a discussion forum that is to all intents and purpposes geared to a particular view of the case.

Bruce Fisher said:
I agree that PMF is good for translation. If you read the entire Massei report with an open mind you will see that it's good for the defense. PMF did the same thing with the CNN Mignini interview. When you read the entire transcript it puts Mignini in a very poor light. So a big thank you to PMF for all of their translation efforts.
Click to expand...
I'm relieved you think so. Perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes.

Bruce Fisher said:
You say that sites like IIP post what they want to post. What info would you like me to post? We post hundreds of photos and video along with presentations that were presented in court by defense experts. IIP will not post any crime scene or autopsy photos of Meredith but other than that, everything we have is available. We make absolutely no attempt to hide anything. The truth is clear for anyone willing to see it. There is no need to hide anything.
Click to expand...
Dr Waterbury claimed to have access to all the information on the case. Post that.

Bruce Fisher said:
IIP also has a public forum where all opinions are welcome.
Click to expand...
I may take you up on that.

Bruce Fisher said:
Do you read the posts in the general discussion thread on PMF? Do you see the vile hatred that comes from that group? Do you honestly feel at home with them?
Click to expand...
Not with everything, no. Equally people post nasty and/or aggressive things on all the forums relating to the case. On PMF I can be pretty sure they won't be directed at me. On PerugiaShock and IIP, not so much. Maybe things have changed?

Bruce Fisher said:
You will see dozens of theories on PMF of how the crime played out. All theories are welcome there just as long as they end with Amanda Knox being guilty.
Click to expand...
It's a pro-guilt board. I imagine I'd have quite a few posters to contend with if I posted a pro-guilt scenario on IIP, not that I'm going to.

Bruce Fisher said:
IIP has one theory of the the crime and has never waivered from that theory. This crime was brutal but not complicated.
Click to expand...
Sure, you have the word of Amanda and Raffaele to go on. That aspect of the crime is fixed in stone for you. I wouldn't expect it to change. It would be odd if you decided that they were innocent, but lying. Possible I suppose.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Well at least there is trial transcript to read.



Ok, but where is that "someone else says so" coming from? In this case 95% is from the media, not the court.
Click to expand...


You're suggesting that Massei's sentencing report - which is meant to contain a full reasoning behind the verdict with detailed reference to the relevant evidence, testimony and arguments - constitutes 5% (maximum) of the information available about the trial? Interesting........
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't understand how anyone (including the immediate families) can say that Knox and Sollecito are 100% innocent either. I certainly don't say this. I say that they certainly should not have been found guilty. Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

With this line of thinking it would be impossible to say that anyone at home alone or home with one other person on the night of the murder in Perugia, Italy, is 100% innocent.
 
LondonJohn said:
You're right, and shuttlt is wrong.

It's amazing how many people ignorantly believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means something like: "you're allowed a little bit of doubt - a "reasonable" amount - and still return a guilty verdict, but any more doubt than that and you should acquit". It doesn't mean that at all.
Click to expand...
That isnt what the judge told me when I was on a jury.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Well at least there is trial transcript to read.
Click to expand...


Indeed. More usefully, the Adobe search function is an absolute cracker of a resource. I'm still finding stuff that simply floors me as regards the gaping holes it reveals in the prosecution case.

Alt+F4 said:
Ok, but where is that "someone else says so" coming from? In this case 95% is from the media, not the court.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about people who declare that the decision of a court must be believed implicitly and unquestioningly, on pain of being consigned to the CT forum - right up to the moment the appeal court quashes the conviction.

If reasonable people can explain the nature of their reasonable doubts, and they are met only by retorts that the court convicted and that's all that matters, then I know which side I incline to quite frankly.

Do you think Sion Jenkins was guilty? Barry George? Stefan Kiszko? Paul Esslemont? Sally Clark?

Every single one of these people was convicted of murder, and in each case there was a huge amount of reasonable doubt which eventually led to the convictions being quashed. All the cases were the subject of discussion before the appeal findings, with the reasonable doubts being aired. Would you have argued for guilt beyond reasonable doubt simply on the basis that they had been convicted?

The Kercher case could simply be in the same place these cases were before the appeal verdicts.

Rolfe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom