Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[banquetbear]

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!

...Mary_H asked The Central Scrutinizer "And why are you on a skeptic's forum when you are not a skeptic?" I was offering perspective, thats all. I never stated you couldn't be a decent skeptic you had to demonstrate scepticism across a variety of different topics. These are entirely your words and I would appreciate it if you did not attribute to me things I didn't say.

The Central Scrutinizer is an active member of the skeptic forums, and has participated in them since 2001. I'v disagreed with him several times, and he has posted things that have upset me. But it is clear to me that he is a skeptic, and he is an active participant in the skeptics forums.

Mary_H flat out accused The Central Scrutinizer of not being a skeptic. The overwhelming evidence based on The Central Scrutinizer's participation in these forums is that this is not a true statement. Skeptics frequently disagree with each other all the time, its a nature of the beast. Being a skeptic is not about looking at the same set of facts and coming to the same conclusion. Disagreeing in this thread should not be a basis to accuse someone of not being a skeptic.

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

...and yet, in my eight years here, the vast majority of my posts have not been in one thread. I joined this forum because I had a love for debate and an interest in skepticism. I mainly hang out at the Straight Dope Boards, but occasionally venture over here just to read something different. Over the last couple of years I've largely stopped debating because I figured out that it was sucking too much time out of my real life. I would spend hours, sometimes days researching something a post. I've had my causes: Guantanemo Bay, Peter Ellis, The War on Terror, Global Warming, the earthquake in Christchurch are just a few of the issues I've debated and touched on over the years. Life's to important for me now to do that any more. Something to think about.

 

[DrDave]

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."

The mind of the conspiracy theorist is truly a marvelous thing to behold

 

[RoseMontague]

I am glad they decided to participate. Their opinions would carry more value if they were actually familiar with the evidence. Maybe they might even change their mind about guilt.

 

[Mary_H]

...Mary_H asked The Central Scrutinizer "And why are you on a skeptic's forum when you are not a skeptic?" I was offering perspective, thats all. I never stated you couldn't be a decent skeptic you had to demonstrate scepticism across a variety of different topics. These are entirely your words and I would appreciate it if you did not attribute to me things I didn't say.

The Central Scrutinizer is an active member of the skeptic forums, and has participated in them since 2001. I'v disagreed with him several times, and he has posted things that have upset me. But it is clear to me that he is a skeptic, and he is an active participant in the skeptics forums.

Mary_H flat out accused The Central Scrutinizer of not being a skeptic. The overwhelming evidence based on The Central Scrutinizer's participation in these forums is that this is not a true statement. Skeptics frequently disagree with each other all the time, its a nature of the beast. Being a skeptic is not about looking at the same set of facts and coming to the same conclusion. Disagreeing in this thread should not be a basis to accuse someone of not being a skeptic.

...and yet, in my eight years here, the vast majority of my posts have not been in one thread. I joined this forum because I had a love for debate and an interest in skepticism. I mainly hang out at the Straight Dope Boards, but occasionally venture over here just to read something different. Over the last couple of years I've largely stopped debating because I figured out that it was sucking too much time out of my real life. I would spend hours, sometimes days researching something a post. I've had my causes: Guantanemo Bay, Peter Ellis, The War on Terror, Global Warming, the earthquake in Christchurch are just a few of the issues I've debated and touched on over the years. Life's to important for me now to do that any more. Something to think about.

Thank you for your perspective, banquetbear. It helps me clarify my position.

My first reaction to your other post was, "When did I say I had a keen interest in skepticism?" The fact is, I have a keen interest in this case.

I don't care whether The Central Scrutinizer is a skeptic in other forums; I only care about what he says in this forum. In this thread, he has done nothing but act the troll.

Your last paragraph suggests you and I are guided by different purposes when it comes to JREF. You love debate and are interested in skepticism. It sounds like JREF is also a source of entertainment for you.

I never looked at a blog or made a comment online until the Amanda Knox case. When it is over, I doubt I will be back to JREF or any other forum. I do enjoy the process very much, but as you say, it takes up a lot of time. I have a strong interest right now in exposing the truth about this case, but not, generally speaking, in discussing topics on the internet.

 

[pilot padron]

Using engineered arguing methods

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

If an arguer often finds necessary to start and/or end each of his arguments with a cheap shot aimed at the opponent , it becomes somewhat less effective and ultimately laughable when the cheap shot shooter cannot even correctly identify the arguer he condescendingly sends the borderline insult cheap shot to.

HINT: it was not lionking who was searching for the iron meter in a previous argument, it was The Central Scrutinizer

I was going to use the "busted irony meter" here, but it's just too easy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7322982#post7322982

Oh dear, yes, I am sure that is what you 'meant to say' in your argument.

Kinda like an unsolicited spelling lesson opener when nothing was misspelled.

But, hey, maybe communications engineering training promotes this tactic for arguments, and I just am not so blessed in arguing nor accustomed to or comfortable with such skirting of MA intent.

 

[theRealBob]

The mind of the conspiracy theorist is truly a marvelous thing to behold

Thank you.

 

[Kaosium]

...Mary_H asked The Central Scrutinizer "And why are you on a skeptic's forum when you are not a skeptic?" I was offering perspective, thats all. I never stated you couldn't be a decent skeptic you had to demonstrate scepticism across a variety of different topics. These are entirely your words and I would appreciate it if you did not attribute to me things I didn't say.

The Central Scrutinizer is an active member of the skeptic forums, and has participated in them since 2001. I'v disagreed with him several times, and he has posted things that have upset me. But it is clear to me that he is a skeptic, and he is an active participant in the skeptics forums.

Mary_H flat out accused The Central Scrutinizer of not being a skeptic. The overwhelming evidence based on The Central Scrutinizer's participation in these forums is that this is not a true statement. Skeptics frequently disagree with each other all the time, its a nature of the beast. Being a skeptic is not about looking at the same set of facts and coming to the same conclusion. Disagreeing in this thread should not be a basis to accuse someone of not being a skeptic.

BB, posting on a forum and making fun of people who believe silly things does not a skeptic make. Most of them are obvious to the rational mind, how could people miss on most of them? In fact, all it amounts to is going with majority opinion, doesn't it?

...and yet, in my eight years here, the vast majority of my posts have not been in one thread. I joined this forum because I had a love for debate and an interest in skepticism. I mainly hang out at the Straight Dope Boards, but occasionally venture over here just to read something different. Over the last couple of years I've largely stopped debating because I figured out that it was sucking too much time out of my real life. I would spend hours, sometimes days researching something a post. I've had my causes: Guantanemo Bay, Peter Ellis, The War on Terror, Global Warming, the earthquake in Christchurch are just a few of the issues I've debated and touched on over the years. Life's to important for me now to do that any more. Something to think about.

If you'd done more actual research on this issue perhaps you'd understand the attraction. I recall you saying your exposure to this case was limited to reading the first 'Cartwheel' thread. That's when a bunch of people with a lot of posts on a skeptics forum fell for a conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker. Not just the case, but the idea that the ones promoting innocence were part of an orchestrated and paid for 'PR campaign' when it became relatively obvious given time that was just an expected grassroots effort stemming from a gross injustice, and the only 'organized PR campaign' (such as these things are) going on was from this one website and its associated messageboard who'd spent two years convincing themselves of guilt for whatever reasons and were trying to spread their 'message' and combat the 'forces of innocence.'

Had you actually thought about what that probably meant, it should have suggested something to you...

 

[theRealBob]

I think a lot of the crazy behaviour by Amanda at the cop shop could be attributed to the bad situation + venom from Meredith's friends scenario.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

civility; Ruby Ridge

Thank you for your kind gracious offer. However, I am not so arrogant as to think (unlike some) that I could possibly define civility to an entire forum; as ever we digress!

(highlighting mine)
CoulsdonUK,

To whom do your refer? Apparently some posts are edited for civility; therefore, I am not certain that discussing it counts as a digression. Discussing Waco or Ruby Ridge would be off-topic unless one is drawing a comparison to those cases and these. It seems as if our opinions do differ on this question.

 

[Paninaro]

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 !

What is so interesting with all this message board/blog war nonsense? Can't we just stick with the case and leave people fighting on the internet to their own devices. It's extremely boring, really. This goes for both sides of this discussion, actually.

It's also very much Off Topic and if this was my message board I would suspend you all. Now I've added to this stuff too, but so be it.Can't everybody be sceptical about FOA and Pete Quennell somewhere else?

OnT: I should think all would agree that Rudy Guede is a total creep and is lying through his teeth about absolutely everything. Either he's not telling the truth about Knox and Sollecito's involvement, meaning they could go free, or he's not telling the truth about them being innocent.

And this behaviour the Italian justice system in its wisedom has decided to reward with a lighter sentence. He's studying to be a social worker. What a joke. To help the less fortunate after he's served his time and repented. The only thing anyone can be sure of in this case the total falseness and cruelty of this man even after the crime. He easily qualifies for all the lower circles of hell. He should be boiling in the sea of fire at the same time as he's frozen in the ice. Dante would invent an own punishment for this peace of crap.

And he's even allowed to accuse people without having to answer for his accusations too. It's all over the headlines. This perverted justice, this black farce, continues when Guede takes the stand, accusing innocent people of his crimes, labeled an eye witness by the press and the court. In a perverse defence of his right as a defendent, the court violates the rights of the the other defendants by not letting them defend themselves against their accusers. Judge Hellmann may belong as a man in hell to for upholding this perverted justice. Maybe he could replace Minos.

- We have to listen to what Guede says, because we could deduce some pearls of wisdom, some truths out of his lies. We could deduce that the story he's telling is not true, but means that Knox and Sollecito must have been there at least, even if Guede's story is a mess. What a lie, but let's print it in the headlines anyway. And so it continues.

 

[banquetbear]

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."

...I've posted, what, three times in this thread? I must have left a big impression on you in order for you to decide to insult me like this. I don't know the other posters from Adam.

I don't think I've been unfair with anything I've said. I've stated before that I believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, but that is entirely based on the way I read the evidence that is in the public domain. I understand where you are coming from: and sometimes I will read something and go..."huh." If Amanda was found not guilty, I would not be upset or surprised.

The big problem I have is I'm a big believer in evidence. And we can't critically examine the evidence in this case in this thread. Its impossible.

This thread moves much to rapidly for people to stop and take a breath. Cites are clouded with either a "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocent" bias. Links are old, no longer working or in another language. I can't trust what is posted at PMF or the Injustice site because everything is put through the "filter" of the people who are running the site. I don't know what has been missed out, added or omitted. You can't even trust the news: look at the "Sky News" events that have happened over the last couple of days. And everybody is too emotionally involved: and everybody has already made up their minds.

(I wrote all of this before Mary_H's latest post: I will let the post stand as it is, but appreciate the clarification made by Mary_H below)

Thank you for your perspective, banquetbear. It helps me clarify my position.

My first reaction to your other post was, "When did I say I had a keen interest in skepticism?" The fact is, I have a keen interest in this case.

I don't care whether The Central Scrutinizer is a skeptic in other forums; I only care about what he says in this forum. In this thread, he has done nothing but act the troll.

Your last paragraph suggests you and I are guided by different purposes when it comes to JREF. You love debate and are interested in skepticism. It sounds like JREF is also a source of entertainment for you.

I never looked at a blog or made a comment online until the Amanda Knox case. When it is over, I doubt I will be back to JREF or any other forum. I do enjoy the process very much, but as you say, it takes up a lot of time. I have a strong interest right now in exposing the truth about this case, but not, generally speaking, in discussing topics on the internet.

These are all fair comments. It is entirely fair for you to call out The Central Scrutinizer for his behaviour in this thread: what I personally took umbrage at was the accusation that he was not a skeptic. I think its fine that you just take part in this thread, and your clarification have added perspective to me. I disagree with your position on this case. I do, however, admire you passion and conviction. Never stop fighting for what you believe in.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

things left undone

Halides1
I am not aware of avoiding anything, I do have a life outside of posting here, I also do not read through every single page and post mainly because of time constraints, so sometimes I just miss posts.

CoulsdonUK,

In message 13393 you wrote that Maresca “is representing the Kercher family.” In messages
13375, 13383, 13394, and 13408, I gave some of my reasons for questioning whether Mr. Maresca’s actions are really in his clients’ interest. You have not answered the questions raised in these comments.

 

[platonov]

What is so interesting with all this message board/blog war nonsense? Can't we just stick with the case and leave people fighting on the internet to their own devices. It's extremely boring, really. This goes for both sides of this discussion, actually.

It's also very much Off Topic and if this was my message board I would suspend you all. Now I've added to this stuff too, but so be it.Can't everybody be sceptical about FOA and Pete Quennell somewhere else?

OnT: I should think all would agree that Rudy Guede is a total creep and is lying through his teeth about absolutely everything. Either he's not telling the truth about Knox and Sollecito's involvement, meaning they could go free, or he's not telling the truth about them being innocent.

And this behaviour the Italian justice system in its wisedom has decided to reward with a lighter sentence. He's studying to be a social worker. What a joke. To help the less fortunate after he's served his time and repented. The only thing anyone can be sure of in this case the total falseness and cruelty of this man even after the crime. He easily qualifies for all the lower circles of hell. He should be boiling in the sea of fire at the same time as he's frozen in the ice. Dante would invent an own punishment for this peace of crap.

And he's even allowed to accuse people without having to answer for his accusations too. It's all over the headlines. This perverted justice, this black farce, continues when Guede takes the stand, accusing innocent people of his crimes, labeled an eye witness by the press and the court. In a perverse defence of his right as a defendent, the court violates the rights of the the other defendants by not letting them defend themselves against their accusers. Judge Hellmann may belong as a man in hell to for upholding this perverted justice. Maybe he could replace Minos.

- We have to listen to what Guede says, because we could deduce some pearls of wisdom, some truths out of his lies. We could deduce that the story he's telling is not true, but means that Knox and Sollecito must have been there at least, even if Guede's story is a mess. What a lie, but let's print it in the headlines anyway. And so it continues.

Hey

I'm not one of the posters who keep responding to posts that are either invisible or on another board.
Take that up with London John and Co - a few have tried but to no avail.

I thought the C Dempsey stuff was worth noting as she is regarded as an oracle by many here and wondered if it was part of the Mignini 'war on free speech'. I am still waiting for an answer - who knows how far the conspiracy extends ??


As to you On topic argument see my post here.
You also appear confused over the reduction in RG's sentence.This is understandable as it has only been explained 627 times on this thread.


A general point in closing ; I fail to see the distinction between message board nonsense vs the case itself as regards this thread. Most of whats posted here is repetitive CT nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the case itself.

Isn't that very apparent ???

 

[Kaosium]

I don't think I've been unfair with anything I've said. I've stated before that I believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, but that is entirely based on the way I read the evidence that is in the public domain. I understand where you are coming from: and sometimes I will read something and go..."huh." If Amanda was found not guilty, I would not be upset or surprised.

The big problem I have is I'm a big believer in evidence. And we can't critically examine the evidence in this case in this thread. Its impossible.

What do you believe is evidence of Raffaele and Amanda being involved in this murder?

This is not the first time I've asked this question.

Were you to respond you'd be the first one who has professed a belief in guilt that would answer that question and then debate it in good faith.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

putative semen stain

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!

Justinian2,

This is a case in which a putative semen stain was not tested and in which the owner of a store in which a defendant bought ordinary (if slightly pricey) undergarments was called as a witness. Personally I think it would have made more sense to skip the owner's testimony and spend the extra time on the stain, but maybe I am just being a contrarian.

 

[Paninaro]

I fact, if Guede would have accused some official of slapping him in the back of the head he would face Calunnia charges. If he accuses someone innocent of murder he gets a "well done" from Mignini and the luxuary of not having to answer for his allegations.

A truly wonderful system. The criminal we all know was there and attacked Kercher, beyond every reasonabel doubt, not disputed by either the PMF-crowd or FOA, becomes a witness for the prosecution against the woman the prosecutor no longer have an idea if she actively participated in the crime or not.

The theories are becoming more and more ridicoulous. Is Amanda no longer the ring leader? Why did Raffaele and Rudy commit this crime together? Were Rudy Raffaele's dealer? Were they gay lovers and it was them making out in Amandas room when Meredith came home? Did they compare knives and Raffaele had the bigger one? He had brought it to slice pieces of mushrooms for his wonderful black lover while Amanda hid in the kitchen with her fingers in her ears, so she wouldn't hear them. They made Meredith eat a snack and agree to threesome sex, but alas, there were no condoms! So Raffaele killed her while Rudy was in the bathroom. Raffaele run away like a madman , shouting "black man found, black man guilty", with Guede running after him with his pants round his knees.

But why has nobody seen these two guys together then? Why are there no traces of contact; phone, sms, computer, witnesses, nothing? Did they fell instantly in love and decide to kill someone? That must surely be unusual.

There is no internal logic to the orgie scenario, but it gets even less convincing with Knox hiding in the kitchen, not participating. The abandonded child Guede with no family to really call his own teamed up with the motherless shy computer nerd Sollecito who collected knives and with no hesitation and no time to think or plan attacked a woman without other reason than the shear pleasure of it.

 

[banquetbear]

What do you believe is evidence of Raffaele and Amanda being involved in this murder?

This is not the first time I've asked this question.

Were you to respond you'd be the first one who has professed a belief in guilt that would answer that question and then debate it in good faith.

...and I believe I have answered that question. You've read the motivations report: I have no great disagreement with that.

Now: I understand you believe you've debunked that report, but I do not share that belief.

So we could do the whole sing and dance where we spend four or five pages dancing around the same debating points over and over, or you could acknowledge that I've looked at some of the same facts as you have and come to a completely different conclusion, and move on.

I'd love to enter into a debate, but as I mentioned, I'm retired. I am also tired, got many, many issues looming in my personal life, and every minute posting to this thread means I spend less time working on my business plan, figuring out ways for me to earn a living next month, help out my friend who is having a horrible time right now, and getting my affairs in order. I've just got to much to do at the moment and not enough time. But as I said to Mary_H, don't stop fighting for what you believe in, just don't fight me.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

You're welcome

DrDave,

Lindy Chamberlind was found guilty of murdering her baby, and her conviction was upheld by three appeal courts.

Arthur Allen Thomas was found guilty of double homcide and after a successful appeal to have a new trial was found guilty of the murders a second time.

Since they were both convicted in a court, does that mean they are guilty of those crimes?

Oh, and I'd point out that a court found O. J. Simpson not guilty of double homicide, did they get it right too?

 

[PhantomWolf]

...and I believe I have answered that question. You've read the motivations report: I have no great disagreement with that.

Now: I understand you believe you've debunked that report, but I do not share that belief.

Mind if I ask what you find to be the strongest evidence that Massei gives as to the guilt of RS and AK?

 

[komponisto]

I don't think I've been unfair with anything I've said. I've stated before that I believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, but that is entirely based on the way I read the evidence that is in the public domain. I understand where you are coming from: and sometimes I will read something and go..."huh." If Amanda was found not guilty, I would not be upset or surprised.

If you believe she is guilty, then, provided that you expect courts to reach the correct conclusions, you should be at least mildly surprised or confused if she is found not guilty.

The big problem I have is I'm a big believer in evidence. And we can't critically examine the evidence in this case in this thread. Its impossible.

It's unfortunate you feel that way, because it sounds -- from this post at least -- like you're exactly the sort of person who should be on this thread: a believer in guilt who is willing to rationally and critically discuss the topic (without engaging in childish sneers and taunts like almost all of the remaining pro-guilt posters).

Cites are clouded with either a "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocent" bias... I can't trust what is posted at PMF or the Injustice site because everything is put through the "filter" of the people who are running the site. I don't know what has been missed out, added or omitted.

Note that this is the same situation you would face if you were a juror on the case! In that case, it would be arguably worse because the attorneys are actually paid to advocate a particular side.

And everybody is too emotionally involved:

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with being emotionally involved, provided the emotions are caused by the beliefs and not the other way around.

and everybody has already made up their minds.

Clearly that can't be a sufficient reason not to discuss a topic. After all, physicists have already made up their minds on whether general relativity is correct; and yet, it remains perfectly possible to have a productive discussion with them about the evidence for general relativity. Why should it be any different with those who have made up their minds about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty?