Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I'm completely innocent in law, and yet I'm not sitting in prison, am I Wendy?

Guess that one backfired on you a little bit, huh?
Click to expand...


No, it didn't. It backfired on you, unfortunately. :D

If you were arrested and charged with murder tomorrow morning, you'd be sitting in a prison cell by tomorrow afternoon, and for months and months afterwards while you waited for your trial to start. As I patiently explained before, you wouldn't be in prison because you were serving a sentence as a convicted murderer. Indeed, there's a clear chance that you might be acquitted at trial and sent home a totally innocent man in the eyes of the law.

Rather, you would be sitting in prison because it's now a well-established principle in modern jurisprudence that the potential risk to the public of you being a murderer and being on the loose before your trial outweighs the chance of you being acquitted. Well, either that, or a judge has ruled that the risk of your flight (facing a lengthy prison sentence if convicted) outweighs the chance of your acquittal.

In that circumstance, therefore, you would be sitting in prison for many months, despite not yet being convicted of the offences with which you had been charged. In other words, you'd be in prison despite being legally innocent. Do you get it now?

Shall I get you a damp cloth to help you wipe that runny yellow mess off your face....?
 
Great Rolling Stone Article

Caper said:
This thread is massive. My first post on it.

I'm Canadian and find it hard to believe anyone that posts on here (I would suspect skeptics to be more educated about a subject then the average person) could come to the conclusion she is guilty.

The Rolling Stone has a great article that just came up in the last few days. A great read.

To me the biggest thing pointing to her innocence or rather Guede's sole involvement in the crime is the fact he never flushed the toilet after a number 2. To me it points to him being in the apartment alone and hearing the door open when he's on the can and not flushing to avoid making noise. I suppose the pro-guilt people will say he just forgot in the mad scramble after the murder... but I don't know flushing the toilet after a number 2 seems as natural as pulling up your pants. I'm almost certain I'd go with the first scenario....... It's alot better then the stupid orgy theory.
Click to expand...

Hi, neighbour (notice the "u" in there). Although there are people like Lothian and The Central Srutinizer who know little about it, and who's only interest is in poisoning the well and sniggering to themselves, you will also find here people who are intimately familiar with this case.

I'm glad you mentioned the Rolling Stone article. I agree it is well worth reading. It's measured. And eschews some of the excesses that a few of the pro-innocence people out there (though not necessarily on this forum) sometimes indulge in.

While I personally think there are a lot stronger arguments pointing to innocence than the one you've mentioned, I will say this: ANYTHING is better than the stupid orgy theory.
 
Mary_H said:
33,000 posts later, what exactly is it that you centrally scrutinize? And why are you on a skeptic's forum when you are not a skeptic?
Click to expand...

How is he not a skeptic? Because he doesn't believe in innocence? Be honest, because this seems to be the undercurrent (at the very least). Do you think that people who believe in guilt are by definition unskeptical?
 
Caper said:
This thread is massive. My first post on it.

I'm Canadian and find it hard to believe anyone that posts on here (I would suspect skeptics to be more educated about a subject then the average person) could come to the conclusion she is guilty.

The Rolling Stone has a great article that just came up in the last few days. A great read.

To me the biggest thing pointing to her innocence or rather Guede's sole involvement in the crime is the fact he never flushed the toilet after a number 2. To me it points to him being in the apartment alone and hearing the door open when he's on the can and not flushing to avoid making noise. I suppose the pro-guilt people will say he just forgot in the mad scramble after the murder... but I don't know flushing the toilet after a number 2 seems as natural as pulling up your pants. I'm almost certain I'd go with the first scenario....... It's alot better then the stupid orgy theory.
Click to expand...

Welcome, Caper. The whole business (no pun intended) surrounding the unflushed toilet is one the guilters like to avoid, because they have no explanation for what it means. As Phantom Wolf wrote recently:

.....anyone claiming that [Amanda] was trying to protect Rudy then has to explain why she had already sold him out by taking the cops directly to his DNA in the toilet instead of flushing it. In fact if the police are to be believed, she and Raffaele spent a lot of time removing their traces and leaving Rudy's all over the place in what could only be a plan to place the blame on him, and then with the perfect opportunity to do just that and knowing that all the forensics is going to come back to him, Amanda coldly and rationally goes out of her way to not do it? That makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

Also, I think it was Chris C. who raised the question about why Rudy took the time to wipe his rear end as he rushed off to rescue Meredith. (His DNA was found on the toilet paper, not in his feces.)
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
How is he not a skeptic? Because he doesn't believe in innocence? Be honest, because this seems to be the undercurrent (at the very least). Do you think that people who believe in guilt are by definition unskeptical?
Click to expand...


Where was that "irony-o-meter" that you were searching for earlier? :)

The very fact that you're attempting to argue that Mary's accusation of non-scepticism against that poster was based on his belief in Knox's guilt is - in an amusing irony - a non-sceptical assessment of the situation. I almost choked on my fresh mint tea :D
 
LondonJohn said:
Where was that "irony-o-meter" that you were searching for earlier? :)

The very fact that you're attempting to argue that Mary's accusation of non-Scepticism against that poster was based on his belief in Knox's guilt is - in an amusing irony - an unsceptical assessment of the situation. I almost choked on my fresh mint tea :D
Click to expand...

How many people are you a spokesman for? I was asking Mary.

Would you also point out where I was searching for an irony meter?
 
Last edited:
Danceme said:
I'm baffled why Frank defends the inmates who support the defense case as if their motives are pure as the driven snow. He really seems to believe they are there simply out of their strong sense of morality. They are no better than the prosecution's inmates IMO and also have hidden agendas or incentives.
Click to expand...

Im betting he is just as baffled as to why you support Mignini.
 
christianahannah said:
I have watched several times (well, really more listened to) the video of Rudy's appearance in court but haven't been able to adequately identify all the voices, persons and conversation during the letter introduction and subsequent reading by Mignini.

The above starts sometime around 9:00 minutes or so and ends around 20:00 minutes or so with Mignini reading the letter. I believe I hear the voices of Rudy, Mignini, a female attorney (Rudy's?), Judge Hellmann(?), Rudy being shown the letter and identifying it (?) and is the woman(?) stepping down to peruse said letter Bongiorno?

There is much conversation/procedural arguments which appear to be riveting, however, there is some conversation I cannot understand during the 10 minute or so time frame and some identification of who is addressing the court.

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-rudy-accusa-amanda-e-raffaele-ecco-il-video-integrale/47972.html
Click to expand...


Kevinfay is clearing up all the confusion. I wonder if he's yet heard back from The Sun newspaper regarding the Sky News video. Maybe he's got sidetracked by Sky inviting him to the Wimbledon men's singles final on Sunday though......
 
lionking said:
How many people are you a spokesman for? I was asking Mary.

Would you also point out where I was searching for an irony meter?
Click to expand...


I am now Mary's official spokesperson. All inquiries to her should be made through me, or via Mary's PR agency, Gogerty Marriott ;)

And I beg your pardon about associating you with the "irony-o-meter" - I was wrong. Ironically, this was actually brought up by the poster in question. It's like Russian dolls of irony in here tonight :D
 
lionking said:
How is he not a skeptic? Because he doesn't believe in innocence? Be honest, because this seems to be the undercurrent (at the very least). Do you think that people who believe in guilt are by definition unskeptical?
Click to expand...


Not really, but yeah, kinda.

Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

In this case, there are essentially two factions -- those who support the case for innocence and those who support the case for guilt. The first faction questions the following claims, among others: the charges of guilt; the evidence allegedly supporting the charges; the word of the police, prosecutor and investigators; the procedures of the Perugian court, and the verdict of the first trial. These are all claims that "are taken for granted elsewhere." We've examined all of the topics at length and have built a strong store of knowledge and reason about them in the process.

Meanwhile, the only thing the other faction seems to question is the first faction, which is fine, but they rarely provide any logical reasons for why the opinions or beliefs of the first faction deserve such scrutiny. Many just snipe. The Central Scrutinizer has said that he KNOWS Amanda Knox is guilty, but he has no more information than the the rest of us; in fact, he appears to have much less.

He also has stated, "There is no debate." If that's the way he feels, then what is he doing here?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I am now Mary's official spokesperson. All inquiries to her should be made through me, or via Mary's PR agency, Gogerty Marriott ;)

And I beg your pardon about associating you with the "irony-o-meter" - I was wrong. Ironically, this was actually brought up by the poster in question. It's like Russian dolls of irony in here tonight :D
Click to expand...

Darn it, I TOLD them you couldn't keep a secret.
 
pilot padron said:
Oh, absolutely

Especially when he answers so calmly, composed, and articulately that Knox's and Sollecito's stories have "always been the same".

A less calm, composed, and articulate reply might have faltered and at least alluded to the unequivocal existence of directly contradictory statements:
1) by Knox's lead attorney that he had difficulty finding what is true because Knox kept changing her "story", and he cited 3 versions *so far*
2) by Sollecito himself saying his *first* "story" was rubbish or if you quibble translations still, a sack of crap.

Uh huh.. sure........."always the same":cool:
Click to expand...


Actually once the defendants were given access to the legally required lawyers all statements have been the same. Any statements possibly made without a lawyer would be made illegally and therefore never happened.
 
Mary_H said:
Not really, but yeah, kinda.

Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]

In this case, there are essentially two factions -- those who support the case for innocence and those who support the case for guilt. The first faction questions the following claims, among others: the charges of guilt; the evidence allegedly supporting the charges; the word of the police, prosecutor and investigators; the procedures of the Perugian court, and the verdict of the first trial. These are all claims that "are taken for granted elsewhere." We've examined all of the topics at length and built a strong store of knowledge and reason about them in the meantime.

Meanwhile, the only thing the other faction seems to question is the first faction, which is fine, but they rarely provide any logical reasons for why the opinions or beliefs of the first faction deserve scrutiny. Many just snipe. The Central Scrutinizer has said that he KNOWS Amanda Knox is guilty, but he has no more information than the the rest of us; in fact, he appears to have much less.

He also has stated, "There is no debate." If that's the way he feels, then what is he doing here?
Click to expand...


Everyone on the pro-guilt side seems to have given up trying to explain why they think Knox and/or Sollecito should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of Meredith Kercher. I'd honestly love to hear an argument for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the facts as we currently understand them. It wouldn't need to be a long post - just a list of the things that they believe add up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with a brief commentary of why they believe these things add up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Somehow I think I'm going to be perpetually disappointed.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, it didn't. It backfired on you, unfortunately. :D

If you were arrested and charged with murder tomorrow morning, you'd be sitting in a prison cell by tomorrow afternoon, and for months and months afterwards while you waited for your trial to start. As I patiently explained before, you wouldn't be in prison because you were serving a sentence as a convicted murderer. Indeed, there's a clear chance that you might be acquitted at trial and sent home a totally innocent man in the eyes of the law.

Rather, you would be sitting in prison because it's now a well-established principle in modern jurisprudence that the potential risk to the public of you being a murderer and being on the loose before your trial outweighs the chance of you being acquitted. Well, either that, or a judge has ruled that the risk of your flight (facing a lengthy prison sentence if convicted) outweighs the chance of your acquittal.

In that circumstance, therefore, you would be sitting in prison for many months, despite not yet being convicted of the offences with which you had been charged. In other words, you'd be in prison despite being legally innocent. Do you get it now?

Shall I get you a damp cloth to help you wipe that runny yellow mess off your face....?
Click to expand...

So convicted murderer Amanda Knox hasn't even had a trial yet? How come you haven't fixed the Wikipedia article?

Here's what is on Wikipedia:

Towards the end of November, the prosecution and defence began summing up their cases.[107] On 4 December 2009, after 13 hours of deliberations, Knox was convicted by a panel comprising two judges and six lay judges of all charges except theft and was sentenced to 26 years in prison.[108] Sollecito was found guilty of all five charges and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.[108] According to the lay judges, the verdict was unanimous.[109]
Click to expand...

How come you haven't corrected this article yet?

Shall I get you a damp cloth to help you wipe that runny yellow mess off your face....?

Ouch!
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
It wouldn't need to be a long post - just a list of the things that they believe add up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with a brief commentary of why they believe these things add up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

1. Court conviction - it's what courts are there for

You're welcome
 
lionking said:
You do know that polygraph readings are unreliable and have no place in a court of law?
Click to expand...

Polygraph readings are probably more reliable than profiling, psychiatric evaluations, Perugian forensics, Perugian interrogations, Mignini's theories and all the arguments at PMF.

Let's face it, this entire case has no place in a court of law!
 
LondonJohn said:
Kevinfay is clearing up all the confusion. I wonder if he's yet heard back from The Sun newspaper regarding the Sky News video. Maybe he's got sidetracked by Sky inviting him to the Wimbledon men's singles final on Sunday though......
Click to expand...

Well I do not know how Kevinfay(?) is clearing up my questions but the video is not so much confusing as it is trying to identify who is speaking and figuring out the legalese contained within. I think confusion may come from those writing about the court session without actually having been there or watching the video of Rudy's deposition.

There is an article from Corriere dell'Umbria which is interesting. A poster at PMF has translated the article into English for comparison.

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=38
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom