Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
That you disagree is obvious. What is also obvious is that you rebuff every attempt to elicit a comprehensible reason for this disagreement.

<snip>
Click to expand...


What is obvious is that your opinion of my reasons and my own are different. Nothing more than that, nor am I interested in trying to persuade you to change your mind. It is obvious to me that such an endeavor would be wasted.

This entire segue began when I committed the apparently heinous faux pas of disagreeing with Draca's assertion that there was "plenty of room to the right side of the window sill to enter the room." With predictable results. Anything which could possibly be interpreted as casting doubt upon the received wisdom of the innocence of Knox and , no matter how small, must be crushed. Preferably by a concerted effort.

If you find it incomprehensible that I could hold such an opinion about the space available to climb through that windowsill, or an opinion about the likely actions of an actual burglar confronted with those conditions which disagrees with your own, then there can be very little more for me to offer you on the subject.

That isn't a rebuff, BTW.
 
quadraginta said:
What is obvious is that your opinion of my reasons and my own are different. Nothing more than that, nor am I interested in trying to persuade you to change your mind. It is obvious to me that such an endeavor would be wasted.

This entire segue began when I committed the apparently heinous faux pas of disagreeing with Draca's assertion that there was "plenty of room to the right side of the window sill to enter the room." With predictable results. Anything which could possibly be interpreted as casting doubt upon the received wisdom of the innocence of Knox and , no matter how small, must be crushed. Preferably by a concerted effort.

If you find it incomprehensible that I could hold such an opinion about the space available to climb through that windowsill, or an opinion about the likely actions of an actual burglar confronted with those conditions which disagrees with your own, then there can be very little more for me to offer you on the subject.

That isn't a rebuff, BTW.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity, quadraginta, while I can see that you don't believe on the balance of probablity that anyone entered via the window, do you believe that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that no-one did?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Now this is a textbook example of a straw man.

Nobody is arguing that you don't disagree. We're just pointing out that you have no rational, defensible basis on which to disagree. Hence pretending that we do not grasp that you disagree is a straw man. The issue is whether your disagreement has any sensible basis, not merely whether you disagree or not.

Your mere disagreement is utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...


It means that my opinion about the usefulness of the space available to climb through that window aside from where the glass was left is different than Draco's characterization of it.

Are you struggling with this concept as well?

There is no empirical way to resolve this. My opinion is based on my construction experience, which includes quite a bit of climbing in, around, and through quite a few different kinds of structures in various stages of completion over several decades. It is also based on a fair amount of free climbing I did in my youth in the mountains where I grew up. I don't know what Draco's opinion is based on, or Dan O.'s, or yours for that matter, but I have seen nothing persuasive offered yet to suggest that they are any more authoritative than my own.

So I disagreed.

You are fond of deploring arguments from incredulity when you believe they are being offered by those you disagree with, but this seems to be all you have to offer against my opinion, and yet you characterize my opinion as meaningless without anything more than that.

I don't think we have anything more to exchange on this topic.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Just out of curiousity, quadraginta, while I can see that you don't believe on the balance of probablity that anyone entered via the window, do you believe that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that no-one did?
Click to expand...


"All reasonable doubt"? Tough call.

By LJ's definition? (Which is less than the absolutely statutory one he likes to claim it is, at least not in the U.S.) Probably not. By my own? Mebbe. Probably. Which I suppose puts it pretty close to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The SCOTUS has been rather pointedly averse to actually providing a clear and straightforward definition of that standard, preferring, it would seem, to limit themselves to "No, that's not it this time." or "Yup. That'll do." on a case by case basis when they are confronted with the issue.

But items of evidence taken singly are not subject to that standard anyway, so it is less compelling a question than when overall guilt or innocence is being judged.

I'll apologize ahead of time if my lack of total commitment on this subject leaves you without a target. That's all I've got to offer for now.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Unlikely. Robyn Butterworth said that Meredith arrived at her house around 4pm. So you are going to argue that they ate nothing until 5:30-6:30?
Click to expand...

From the PMF Massei report. (page #s from the English translation)

[Amy Frost has a pretty specific recollection, 5:30-6:00, p. 37]:
"As far November 1 was concerned, she remembered that Meredith had arrived
about half past four and that they had started eating the pizza they had prepared at
around half past five or six."

[Robyn Butterworth's chronology supports earlier pizza consumption, later consumption of the apple crumble, p. 34]
"The last time she had seen Meredith had been November 1 at her house in Via
Bontempi, where there were also Amy Frost and Sophie Purton. Meredith had
arrived at about 4 pm; they had prepared a pizza and had eaten; then they had
looked at the Halloween photos on the computer before starting to watch a film;
around the middle of the film they had prepared an apple crumble, a sort of apple
cake, which they had eaten with ice cream. ..."

If one of the girls was suggesting a different chronology, i.e. that they started eating food later, perhaps during the movie (7pm?), rather than earlier, there doesn't appear to be evidence of it. Robyn and Amy seemed to be rather specific, and both give a consistent timeframe.

-souldonut
 
Dan O. said:
How much space do you believe there is? Do you for instance know the dimensions of this window?
Click to expand...


I stated very specifically how much space I believed there was clear of glass on that sill in my first response to Draco's assertion of "plenty of room". If I didn't have more faith in you I would wonder if you had simply not bothered to read the post itself, but just decided to pile on anyway.

I think that the clear opening of the window casement is probably around 32 inches wide. Possibly as much as 34 inches, but I doubt that. Certainly not much more.

ETA: Example of climbing through window
Click to expand...


Your Google-Foo is quite impressive. You have unearthed a picture of someone climbing through a window. What do you believe this establishes?

-------------------------------------

On a related note, how wide do you think the opening is that your faux burglar is climbing through in that photo? Do you think it is smaller or larger than the space left unoccupied by glass in Filomena's window?

Is there anything about the amount of room left unoccupied by the faux burglar as he climbs through that opening which strikes you as germane to this discussion?

How about how much room he might take advantage of if more were available?

--------------------------------------

And what is that hanging from the sill beside his hand? It wouldn't be a crowbar, would it?

I thought there had been some consensus among certain factions earlier in these threads that the very idea of a burglar carrying a B & E tool was quite beyond the realm of reasonable conjecture. I certainly was the target of a lot of ridicule for suggesting that a 12 inch flat bar would not be unheard of.

I guess the PCSO's in East Sussex haven't caught up with modern burglar etiquette yet.
 
quadraginta said:
"All reasonable doubt"? Tough call.

By LJ's definition? (Which is less than the absolutely statutory one he likes to claim it is, at least not in the U.S.) Probably not. By my own? Mebbe. Probably. Which I suppose puts it pretty close to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The SCOTUS has been rather pointedly averse to actually providing a clear and straightforward definition of that standard, preferring, it would seem, to limit themselves to "No, that's not it this time." or "Yup. That'll do." on a case by case basis when they are confronted with the issue.

But items of evidence taken singly are not subject to that standard anyway, so it is less compelling a question than when overall guilt or innocence is being judged.

I'll apologize ahead of time if my lack of total commitment on this subject leaves you without a target. That's all I've got to offer for now.
Click to expand...

I wasn't looking for a target, just to gauge where you stood. Your answer covered that to some degree.
 
Dan O. said:
How much space do you believe there is? Do you for instance know the dimensions of this window?

ETA: Example of climbing through window
Click to expand...


I usually stay out of the break-in discussions because I think they're a waste of energy. Since there's no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in, why should I care? I also don't care how Rudy got into the house, and I'm not sure the question can ever be answered, except by Rudy.

I want to comment on this photo, though. If Rudy went into the window like that, or by standing on the sill, he would have crushed a lot of the glass on the sill. If he swung his way over the sill, he would have left evidence on the top of the window, either inside or out. I will be the first to admit the cops did not follow up on a lot of potential evidence, i.e., it's entirely possible there was tons of evidence of a break-in in the room, around the window and on the ground. From what I have seen, though, there is not enough evidence to show that anyone came in through that window and walked through the room.
 
Mary_H said:
I usually stay out of the break-in discussions because I think they're a waste of energy. Since there's no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele staged the break-in, why should I care? I also don't care how Rudy got into the house, and I'm not sure the question can ever be answered, except by Rudy.

I want to comment on this photo, though. If Rudy went into the window like that, or by standing on the sill, he would have crushed a lot of the glass on the sill. If he swung his way over the sill, he would have left evidence on the top of the window, either inside or out. I will be the first to admit the cops did not follow up on a lot of potential evidence, i.e., it's entirely possible there was tons of evidence of a break-in in the room, around the window and on the ground. From what I have seen, though, there is not enough evidence to show that anyone came in through that window and walked through the room.
Click to expand...


What we have in that photo is probably an inexperienced reporter staging the entry. The clue is the crowbar hanging from the sill. It's either placed there as a prop to represent burglary tools or it was used as an assist to reach the window. The cops don't need tools since they are only targeting open
windows and to use a crowbar to reach the window in that way would damage the sill.

I believe Rudy is reasonably fit given his activities in sports and nocturnal ventures. He should have sufficient upper body strength to raise himself up on his hands and swing his body and legs between his arms. There would be no glass on top of the frame of the window set in the casement so this gives Rudy a clear place for his hands that doesn't need sweeping.

I don't claim that this is how Rudy actually entered the window. All I am saying is that this is one possibility and we only need one to say that entry through the window is not excluded.


quadraginta's swag on the window opening is remarkably close. My own measurements set the casement opening at .78m with a .04m inset for the frame.
 
platonov said:
Alt+F4 means well and that may be good advice but it's not strictly necessary.

There is a less time consuming method :)

If you can find a number of normally intelligent people on a a website who state that the conviction is unsafe/ridiculous/ a conspiracy that's all you need. Primary documentation is apparently for parrots and buffoons.

Remember that's how the holohoax and the faked moon landings etc were exposed.
Click to expand...

Any statement that the judges got it right is an argument from authority and being a sheeple in spite if the fact that the judges are the authority.
 
Rolfe said:
Bear in mind that when I was typing that paragraph I was talking about forum members in general, not confining my remarks to this thread.




If you don't like my opinion, then try to change it. I assure you, I have no horse in this race. However, if you spend your time on personalities and irrelevancies, don't be surprised if the uncommitted lurker doesn't leap to espouse your conclusions.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

If the break in was faked then someone did it, Amanda's accusation of Patrick proves she thought the break in was faked.
 
tsig said:
Any statement that the judges got it right is an argument from authority and being a sheeple in spite if the fact that the judges are the authority.
Click to expand...

Really? Strangely I thought that to count as an authority you needed two things;

1) Expertise in the field being discussed, and
2) An agreement on the facts discussed between the experts in that field.

I'd really be interested in what expertise and qualifications a Judge and Lay-Judges have that allow them to determine fact compared to a "normal" person, especially when most western countries actually use "normal people" in this exact role, including Italy, and I'd love to see the general agreement on the facts of the case by all the other judges that have viewed the evidence and concuded the same as Massei thus proving there is a general agreement on the topic.

Don't worry, I'll wait for you to find the answers.
 
Kaosium said:
Not in the context of that question, nor other cases where similar patterns are noted.
Click to expand...

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
Other cases are other cases they have nothing to with this case. Please keep your posts relating to the OP.
 
tsig said:
I'm just going by the OP and the MA. Other cases are not applicable.
Click to expand...


In the context of this thread, other cases have been cited and discussed because they are relevant to the topic. Fortunately, the mods have exercised forbearance in allowing the thread to proceed for many months without ruling out the discussion of other cases.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really? Strangely I thought that to count as an authority you needed two things;

1) Expertise in the field being discussed, and
2) An agreement on the facts discussed between the experts in that field.

I'd really be interested in what expertise and qualifications a Judge and Lay-Judges have that allow them to determine fact compared to a "normal" person, especially when most western countries actually use "normal people" in this exact role, including Italy, and I'd love to see the general agreement on the facts of the case by all the other judges that have viewed the evidence and concuded the same as Massei thus proving there is a general agreement on the topic.

Don't worry, I'll wait for you to find the answers.
Click to expand...


You seem to be disagreeing with a trial by jury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom