Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RandyN]

Crap argument.

Crap reply.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

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

Q.E.D.

My post was to answer your post in which you tried to asset the "conundrum" of a legally innocent person sitting in prison. Which I answered. But I'll address your snide straw man nonetheless, just for fun:

Knox (and Sollecito - you're not interested in him? Why's that?) is in the middle of her trial process. She's had one trial, but is in the middle of the second trial, and (if necessary) a Supreme Court hearing. Her trial process will not be concluded until she is either acquitted or until the Supreme Court affirms her conviction. If it's the latter, then only after the Supreme Court affirmation would she be considered convicted. She is currently not convicted of the murder.

So if you wanted me to be even more analogous, imagine you were charged with murder and remanded into custody. You'd remain in custody not only during the preparation for your trial, but also through the whole trial process: you'd be taken from your prison cell every morning, given the opportunity to change into clothing of your choice, and driven in a police van to the court where your trial was being heard - all the while as a completely legally innocent person. Only at the very conclusion of the trial, when the verdict was announced, would you be considered convicted or acquitted.

In Knox's (and Sollecito's) case, the final verdict has essentially not yet been announced. This will only happen either 1) if (when) the appeal court acquits her, 2) if the appeal court finds her guilty, but Supreme Court finds that the law was sufficiently badly misapplied as to warrant an acquittal, or 3) if the appeal court finds her guilty, and the Supreme Court then affirms this finding and applies the conviction.

Boiled, fried or scrambled?

 

[banquetbear]

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?

...indeed! Skeptics Forum! One of the best on the web. There are at least 24 different sub-forum for you to participate in, and thousands of different threads on hundreds of different topics. With your keen interest in skepticism, how many have you ventured into and participated in?

 

[LondonJohn]

lionking, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

"Textbook!" - as Alan Partridge might say

 

[Danceme]

Is it possible the report should have said the lawyers were unaware the letter was going to be read in court?

Yes, that sounds more logical.

Danceme,

It is clear that there could be a hidden agenda when an inmate supports the prosecution. It is not clear what the hidden agenda might be when an inmate goes opposite to the prosecution.

These guys have no morals halides. They have no reason to care about anyone on the outside. Whatever motivates this, it likely doesn't come from a sense of altruism.

Im betting he is just as baffled as to why you support Mignini.

Frank doesn't know me chris. He doesn't know what I think, nor does he care. Having beliefs contrary to yours doesn't mean anyone "supports" Mignini.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

In this case, yes. If you believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and have access to the crime scene photos and videos, the documents concerning the case including the prosecution's exhaustive 400+ page summary of evidence and arguments suggesting their guilt, and cannot muster a single piece of evidence or argument that they are in fact guilty that amounts to anything more than 'other people think so' or 'I can't believe the cops screwed up that badly' (when there is a plethora of actual evidence that is the case) then by definition you are not a skeptic. You might be a very nice person, you might be good at your job and even considered intelligent, but there is nothing skeptical about your approach to this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

...indeed! Skeptics Forum! One of the best on the web. There are at least 24 different sub-forum for you to participate in, and thousands of different threads on hundreds of different topics. With your keen interest in skepticism, how many have you ventured into and participated in?

So to be a "decent sceptic", you have to demonstrate your scepticism across a variety of different topics? That doesn't sound like sceptical thinking to me. The irony just keeps on coming!

 

[Chris C]

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.)

Yep that was always one of the things that showed Guede was lying about the argument at the door and then the scream. He either decided to wipe his butt, before taking a nap on the toilet while listening to his i-pod then heard a scream whilst enjoying the smell or he wiped his butt then murdered Meredith. Considering he broke into the apartment, I seriously doubt Goldilocks decided to take a nap on the toilet when there was so many other nice places to nap at.

 

[Kaosium]

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:



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!

That's akin to saying the game is over because the Bears are winning after the first half. That's not taking into account the fact there's another half to play and everyone knows, 'after further review the Bears still suck!

 

[DrDave]

That's akin to saying the game is over because the Bears are winning after the first half. That's not taking into account the fact there's another half to play and everyone knows, 'after further review the Bears still suck!

So are you saying, if the appeal fails you will change your position?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yep that was always one of the things that showed Guede was lying about the argument at the door and then the scream. He either decided to wipe his butt, before taking a nap on the toilet while listening to his i-pod then heard a scream whilst enjoying the smell or he wiped his butt then murdered Meredith.

Of course the thing that hasn't actually been discussed here much yet is the massive elephant in the room regarding Guede's testimony and letter:

If the prosecution (or court) want to use Guede's testimony/letter as evidence against Knox or Sollecito, they basically have to tear up their narrative from the first trial. Because according to Guede, he and Meredith met up first and had consensual sexual activity, then Guede went for his extended defecation session, whereupon Knox and Sollecito entered the cottage (bizarrely and inexplicably ringing the doorbell on their way in). Sollecito then - for some unknown reason - attacked Meredith fairly immediately - all while Guede was still whiling away time on the toilet listening to chooons on his iPod. Guede then wiped and leaped from the toilet with his trousers down, and grappled with Sollecito in the hallway. Knox and Sollecito then exited the scene, leaving Guede to try to tend to Meredith's wounds as a modern-day Florence Nightingale (before curiously deciding not only not to call for medical or police assistance, but to go dancing into the small hours). Oh, and the whole thing happened before 9.30pm, according to Guede.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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).

I think it is very brave of you to continue posting despite these "undercurrents" you perceive picking on you.

I suggest you tackle these scurrilous "undercurrents" head on by clearly and without evasions or appeals to authority stating exactly what physical facts lead you to believe that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. That would really show those undercurrents.

 

[Chris C]

Of course the thing that hasn't actually been discussed here much yet is the massive elephant in the room regarding Guede's testimony and letter:

If the prosecution (or court) want to use Guede's testimony/letter as evidence against Knox or Sollecito, they basically have to tear up their narrative from the first trial. Because according to Guede, he and Meredith met up first and had consensual sexual activity, then Guede went for his extended defecation session, whereupon Knox and Sollecito entered the cottage (bizarrely and inexplicably ringing the doorbell on their way in). Sollecito then - for some unknown reason - attacked Meredith fairly immediately - all while Guede was still whiling away time on the toilet listening to chooons on his iPod. Guede then wiped and leaped from the toilet with his trousers down, and grappled with Sollecito in the hallway. Knox and Sollecito then exited the scene, leaving Guede to try to tend to Meredith's wounds as a modern-day Florence Nightingale (before curiously deciding not only not to call for medical or police assistance, but to go dancing into the small hours). Oh, and the whole thing happened before 9.30pm, according to Guede.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Not only that but if the prosecution doesn't accept his narrative, then basicly his denial about what he told the convicts has less credibility. Also someone said Mignini read what Guede wrote. Why isn't the current prosecutor participating in the 2nd trial?

 

[Mary_H]

...indeed! Skeptics Forum! One of the best on the web. There are at least 24 different sub-forum for you to participate in, and thousands of different threads on hundreds of different topics. With your keen interest in skepticism, how many have you ventured into and participated in?

Noting the number of posts you have made in eight years, I am wondering how you measure participation.

 

[platonov]

Is there no end to his villainy

Seeing as the wiki article was mentioned I just had a look there and at the talk page.

A couple of months back in CT the fact that there was an ongoing edit war being waged by the Foakers was mentioned. I had a quick look then and noticed a few familiar names. Not very interesting.

On revisiting I see a curious altercation seems to have occurred.
Somebody "has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet of CandaceDempsey"



Why weren't we told ???

Was Mignini behind this ? Is there no end to his villainy !

 

[Justinian2]

You're right, it's a waste of time - they were already found guilty

That is heavy. Really profound. You are telling us that because they were found guilty, the courts must be correct because they made the correct decision!

In other words, the courts make reality! Hmmm.

 

[Kaosium]

So are you saying, if the appeal fails you will change your position?

Would you accept that pi equaled three if a bunch of lawyers got together and said it did? No matter how many times they assembled?

Dr. Dave, Amanda and Raffaele aren't on trial anymore, the Italian Justice System is. There is no legitimate evidence of their guilt, the only thing that has been proven so far is in that system a corrupt prosecutor can come up with an absolutely absurd 'theory,' assemble scant and contrived evidence, and get a 'guilty' verdict from the trial of the first instance that requires ludicrous reasoning defying logic, common sense and science.

Now, were they to actually come up with evidence of their guilt that passes the smell test, then my position would change. However easily corruptible systems making the same mistake twice is not a compelling argument for their guilt, it is an indictment of that system.

Dr. Dave, this one isn't even close. You ought to be able to tell that by the fact that the ones who actually know the case and believe in guilt retreat wholesale from any discussion of evidence, or the 400 page Motivations Report they translated, and gather at a single messageboard, reduced to political tactics and rhetorical tricks.

Incidentally, I've confidence the Italian System will get it right on appeal, very probably this one.

 

[RandyN]

The most interesting question from yesterdays hearing came from Hellmann when he asked Rudy if he understood all the big words written in his very own letter. Rudy answered no...he did not! So Rudy cant read his own handwriting and does not understand all the words he wrote?

As Hellmann smiles at Mignini, I wonder if Mignini actually gets it? Now we know whos going down. Little Giuliano Mignini has been caught with his fat fingers in the cookie jar yet again. Do you hear them coming for you Giuliano? Bad, bad boy.

 

[platonov]

Of Mice and Elephants

Of course the thing that hasn't actually been discussed here much yet is the massive elephant in the room regarding Guede's testimony and letter:

If the prosecution (or court) want to use Guede's testimony/letter as evidence against Knox or Sollecito, they basically have to tear up their narrative from the first trial. Because according to Guede, he and Meredith met up first and had consensual sexual activity, then Guede went for his extended defecation session, whereupon Knox and Sollecito entered the cottage (bizarrely and inexplicably ringing the doorbell on their way in). Sollecito then - for some unknown reason - attacked Meredith fairly immediately - all while Guede was still whiling away time on the toilet listening to chooons on his iPod. Guede then wiped and leaped from the toilet with his trousers down, and grappled with Sollecito in the hallway. Knox and Sollecito then exited the scene, leaving Guede to try to tend to Meredith's wounds as a modern-day Florence Nightingale (before curiously deciding not only not to call for medical or police assistance, but to go dancing into the small hours). Oh, and the whole thing happened before 9.30pm, according to Guede.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Nonsense - obviously no court has accepted, or will accept, the self serving (and changing) narrative of a convicted rapist killer in its entirety.

However, and herein lies the rub, they may attach a certain amount of weight to his testimony that AK and RS were at the crime scene (he was there, remember) and are guilty of the murder.

No amount of wishful thinking can change that.

 

[Mary_H]

A new conspiracy

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that The Central Scrutinizer, DrDave, Lothian and banquetbear had a little powwow amongst themselves and said, "Huh huh, let's go over to the Amanda Knox thread and kick some bootie. Huh huh."