Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...


True - but as I've already discussed, one remains innocent unless and until a court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that one is guilty. The only people who truly, honestly know whether Knox and Sollecito are innocent (in the absence of a proven alibi) are Knox and Sollecito themselves, and probably Guede (and a Higher Being, I suppose, if you believe in that sort of thing).

That's not at all to tar Knox or Sollecito with the brush of "no smoke without fire", or "they might have done it but got off on a technicality". I don't think they were involved in the murder. I am certain in my belief that they should be acquitted of the murder. And I am also virtually certain that they should be acquitted even if the case were tried on a balance of probabilities basis. It's just that the "100% certain of innocence" hurdle is a very high one to cross - and it's one that neither the defendants, their families or supporters need to see crossed either.
 
shuttlt said:
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?


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.


I'm relieved you think so. Perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes.


Dr Waterbury claimed to have access to all the information on the case. Post that.


I may take you up on that.


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?


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.


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.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry at all. I am just surprised that an intelligent person like yourself would feel at home at PMF.

I have much more than the word of Amanda and Raffaele to go on. I have the facts of the case.

You danced right over your accusation that IIP posts only what they want to post when it comes to evidence.

PMF takes the words of Amanda and Raffaele and spins them to fit their agenda. They claim garbage like 9 alibis and that Raffaele has never supplied an alibi for Amanda.

If you read the words of Amanda and Raffaele in context, nothing is incriminating.

Raffaele and Amanda stand side by side in their defense. Raffaele writes letters to our group on a regular basis. Does this sound like the position of a person who feels that Amanda had something to do with Meredith's death? PMF posts complete nonsense. You are free to believe whatever you like.
 
Last edited:
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...


It means that the only doubt you are allowed is unreasonable doubt. So, invisible pink unicorns may be rejected.

More prosaically, it means that if the only way you can imagine the defendant was not guilty is some fanciful, highly improbable flight of imagination, then you may convict. If on the other hand there is a possible scenario that isn't wild fantasy in which the defendant is not guilty, then not guilty must be the verdict.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
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.




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.
Click to expand...
I think we all admit that this could be the case. On the whole though the pro-innocence position isn't one of "well, I don't know, I've got a niggling doubt that is probably enough for reasonable doubt" It's quite a bit stronger than that, almost all the way over the other way. Most of the pro-guilt people will accept that it is possible they will be let off at appeal.
 
shuttlt said:
The judge said that reasonable doubt didn't mean no doubt at all.
Click to expand...

If that's all (s)he said, then I'd say there were certainly grounds for an appeal for a mistrial. If the judge said that reasonable doubt didn't mean no doubt at all, but went on to say that it meant no doubt that a reasonable person might hold, that would be in line with the accepted jurisprudential meaning of the phrase.

In other words, if (for example) your only "doubt" about the defendant's guilt was because the defendant said that the expensive stolen car he was found driving (and was charged with stealing) was given to him by a random stranger as he (the defendant) was walking along the street, without any request for payment of any kind, then this would class as a doubt that is not based on a reasonable person's world view. You should therefore disregard this "doubt", and you should vote guilty.
 
Rolfe said:
It means that the only doubt you are allowed is unreasonable doubt. So, invisible pink unicorns may be rejected.

More prosaically, it means that if the only way you can imagine the defendant was not guilty is some fanciful, highly improbable flight of imagination, then you may convict. If on the other hand there is a possible scenario that isn't wild fantasy in which the defendant is not guilty, then not guilty must be the verdict.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
I bow to Rolfe and concede. Having said that, I was clearly right and we should have let the kid off. :-)

I do think though that what one person regards as an improbably flight of fancy another may not. Also, in practice, and now it turns out based on personal experience, that is not the standard many people in the UK are convincted with.
 
LondonJohn said:
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........
Click to expand...


Would that be something equivalent to the "Opinion of the Court" in the Zeist trial? That's supposed to lay out the reasoning of the judges and explain why the guilty verdict was arrived at. It's striking that everyone who has actually read it who isn't connected to the families of the US Lockerbie victims comes out the other end saying, but on that evidence, Megrahi didn't do it....

If your sentencing report is a similar production, I kind of know where you're coming from.

Rolfe.
 
shuttlt said:
I think we all admit that this could be the case. On the whole though the pro-innocence position isn't one of "well, I don't know, I've got a niggling doubt that is probably enough for reasonable doubt" It's quite a bit stronger than that, almost all the way over the other way. Most of the pro-guilt people will accept that it is possible they will be let off at appeal.
Click to expand...


Then they shouldn't be "pro-guilt" then. They should be taking a more nuanced position that they believe Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder, but that there is not sufficient evidence to convict them. If that were the case, I would have a lot more respect for their positions (although I'd still disagree with it).
 
it's the other way around

shuttlt said:
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?
Click to expand...
shuttlt,

You seem to have things turned around 180 degrees for some (and I suspect most) of us who are in the pro-innocence or pro-unsafe-conviction camps. I did not start with the conviction that Amanda and Raffaele are supposed to be telling the truth. I looked at the facts, and the facts suggested to me that they are telling the truth.
 
shuttlt said:
I think we all admit that this could be the case. On the whole though the pro-innocence position isn't one of "well, I don't know, I've got a niggling doubt that is probably enough for reasonable doubt" It's quite a bit stronger than that, almost all the way over the other way. Most of the pro-guilt people will accept that it is possible they will be let off at appeal.
Click to expand...

Most? Please substantiate that. I've seen just the opposite.
 
Rolfe said:
It means that the only doubt you are allowed is unreasonable doubt. So, invisible pink unicorns may be rejected.

More prosaically, it means that if the only way you can imagine the defendant was not guilty is some fanciful, highly improbable flight of imagination, then you may convict. If on the other hand there is a possible scenario that isn't wild fantasy in which the defendant is not guilty, then not guilty must be the verdict.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's a shame more people don't understand this (or perhaps don't want to understand it).
 
Rolfe said:
Frankly, not that interested. As I said, I have other fish I'm taking a brief break from frying. I'm actually interested in this thread, and in how various posters manage to support the positions they're taking.

The evidence as far as I understand it is that Meredith ate dinner, a pizza, at about 6pm. At post mortem, 500ml ingesta was found in her stomach and nothing in her duodenum.

Either these facts are untrue, or she was dead well before ten o'clock.
Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Yes, As I pointed out directly to you before that is not the 'evidence' i.e. those facts are 'untrue' & and you are also missing other pertinent information.

Although you seem to have spotted the distinction between 'at autopsy' and at 'Time of death' or
am I reading too much into your post ?

Now either your sources for this info - mendacious CT arguments - are not necessarily to be trusted.

Or else the defence experts are in on the conspiracy.

Now which is more likely in your opinion ?
 
Last edited:
Fuji's argument is just a variation on the old argument of some super secret evidence that the court must have that does prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Why Massei would have neglected something so important in his 400 page report is a question that has not been answered. Massei's reasoning is flawed as can be seen by the report itself. I understand why those on the guilty side want there to be some super secret evidence that Massei fails to mention simply because his report is so unconvincing.
 
shuttlt said:
Also, in practice, and now it turns out based on personal experience, that is not the standard many people in the UK are convincted with.
Click to expand...


Barry George, Sally Clark, Sion Jenkins, Paul Esslemont, Stefan Kiszko, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi....

Rolfe.
 
LondonJohn said:
If that's all (s)he said, then I'd say there were certainly grounds for an appeal for a mistrial. If the judge said that reasonable doubt didn't mean no doubt at all, but went on to say that it meant no doubt that a reasonable person might hold, that would be in line with the accepted jurisprudential meaning of the phrase.

In other words, if (for example) your only "doubt" about the defendant's guilt was because the defendant said that the expensive stolen car he was found driving (and was charged with stealing) was given to him by a random stranger as he (the defendant) was walking along the street, without any request for payment of any kind, then this would class as a doubt that is not based on a reasonable person's world view. You should therefore disregard this "doubt", and you should vote guilty.
Click to expand...
A doubt that it is unreasonable not to convict on the basis of. Yes.
 
platonov said:
Yes, As I pointed out directly to you before that is not the 'evidence' i.e. those facts are 'untrue' & and you are also missing other pertinent information.

Although you seem to have spotted the distinction between 'at autopsy' and at 'Time of death' or
am I reading too much into your post ?

Now either your sources for this info - mendacious CT arguments - are not necessarily to be trusted.

Or else the defence experts are in on the conspiracy.

Now which is more likely in your opinion ?
Click to expand...


Just out of interest, do you know what the defence and prosecution experts said about the ToD by analysis of the autopsy's stomach/duodenum examination? I'll give you a hint: Judge Massei helpfully documents each of the pathologists' opinions on this, then proceeds to completely ignore this area of their combined testimony as he judges the ToD to be at around 11.40pm.

Would you like a link to the relevant pages of the English translation of the Massei report, or are you able to do your own research?
 
HumanityBlues said:
Most? Please substantiate that. I've seen just the opposite.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong. Ask them. When I've seen the question directly asked may say that they don't think that they will be, or that they think it's unlikely, but my impression is that most accept the possibility. The question isnt normally asked so plainly though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom