Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Could not have validated my parting point better myself

(highlighting by LondonJohn)

No: I think that most of the pro-guilt posters have left here because they cannot present a coherent argument on a level playing field. Plus, playing the victim is oh-so-appealing, n'est-ce pas?

It's interesting that you come to the conclusion that you are one of the idiots. I couldn't possibly comment either way: it would be terribly impolite

What evidence do you have that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher? OR do you prefer not to discuss the....ya know..... evidence?

1)Glad you find anything an idiot says is in any way "oh-so- 'appealing"

2) Your ever so snarky observation about 'my conclusion' says all that remains to be said (or currently discussed here) by this particular 'non sub-set, full fledged' idiot)

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not saying that Shutit. I'm saying the opportunity to have a REAL Independent DNA review may have resulted partially from the pressure of internation advocates. I'm not saying anything is being cooked. It made it more difficult for the next judge to just rubberstamp the conviction and be done with it. Steve Moore said in countless interviews "If the DNA is that strong, why won't they let anyone take a look at it?" That was a very valid point. It got an answer. I can not say for sure it wouldn't have turned out that way anyway, but my instinct is that it helped.

OK. My take at the original trial was that it was rather late in the day that the defence asked for independent experts. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that it was reasonable for them to have to wait for the second trial for that.

I didn't mean to twist your words. I guess I was thinking too many steps ahead... that whatever pressure you guys were exerting would hardly have relented if the new report had come back in favor of the prosecution, hence if the new report was intended to relieve the pressure it must have been with the expectation that it would favor the defence. There have been posts here in the recent past claiming the whole thing is just a mechanism by which the court can come up with a reason to find them innocent. Apologies.

 

[LondonJohn]

1)Glad you find anything an idiot says is in any way "oh-so- 'appealing"

2) Your ever so snarky observation about 'my conclusion' says all that remains to be said (or currently discussed here) by this particular 'non sub-set' idiot)

What evidence do you have that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher?

 

[shuttlt]

You'll be able to read the report soon enough and can decide if you think it's cooked.

I don't think it was cooked. That would be getting way too complicated for me. I've seen that thought suggested here previously by at least one pro-innocence poster though - that the appeal court is desperately looking for some way to find them innocent based on something 'new' in order to save face and, I think, this testimony was the way they had decided to do it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now is as good a time as any to admit you were wrong and jump ship. No one will fault you for it.

And them ears o' wheat ain't gonna cut themselves, now, are they?

 

[snook1]

What evidence do you have that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher?

I've seen you asking this question many times since the report headlines. It's a pity that Stint/Pilot isn't honest enough to answer. The answer, after all, is pretty simple. There's none.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've seen you asking this question many times since the report headlines. It's a pity that Stint/Pilot isn't honest enough to answer. The answer, after all, is pretty simple. There's none.

I believe that if he could answer this question, he would. He has not offered any reasonable arguments for a very, very long time. His absence from a thread that is trying to debate the case in an open and rational way will not therefore be mourned.

 

[snook1]

Amen.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is what I find so very strange: why can't anyone articulate the reasons for guilt? It shouldn't be difficult.

See. if I were pro-guilt, I might bring up something like the bathmat partial footprint. Of course, I would then have to argue as to why I thought the prosecution and court were correct in their assessment in the the first trial that the print matched Sollecito and excluded Guede (rather than simply appealing to authority), but I'm sure a decent debate could be had over this issue.

And it's not a trifling issue either. If the partial print really can be proven to be Sollecito's, then this is highly incriminating evidence towards both Knox and Sollecito. It would, after all, show that Sollecito had been barefoot in the small bathroom after having stepped at some point in at least a dilute mixture of Meredith's blood. And since Sollecito denies any of this ever happening in his version of events, such evidence would cast huge doubt on his credibility and honesty, as well as positively linking him with the murder or some form of clean-up. And given that Knox's version of events essentially matches Sollecito's, it would be very bad news for Knox too.

The same goes (to a slightly lesser extent) for Quintavalle's testimony. If his story can be proven to be reliable and accurate, then this raises big questions for Knox. Why would she deny being in Quintavalle's store at 7.45am on the morning after the murder, unless she had something significant to hide?

These are two examples of areas where someone who believes Knox/Sollecito to be guilty might be able to at least engage in sensible debate. My own personal view is that the bathmat print cannot be in anyway matched with any precision to Sollecito (and that Guede cannot be excluded), and that Quintavalle is either mistaken or lying. But I would welcome a debate on issues such as these, and I am certainly more than willing to be persuaded by powerful, logical, supported arguments that clash with my current opinions.

 

[shuttlt]

What evidence do you have that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Is this a sensible question? If there is evidence for guilt beyond reasonable doubt then it is presumably fairly well indexed in the Mignini report.

Or were you asking Pilot to provide a single post argument summarizing his/her reasoning from this evidence to guilt (assuming that he/she still believes in guilt) that is sufficiently complete that it doesn't immedietly get him/her compulsively mauled for giving an incomplete argument? I very much doubt that this can be done by anyone not neurotically obsessed with the case, and perhaps not even then.

At the very least it seems sensible to give people who believe in guilt a bit of time to think their position through based on recent developments.

 

[platonov]

Red shoe polish and laudanum required urgently.

My My

A lot of very emotional posts/arguments being made here today - Idiots galore and half of Italy going to jail !
Must be the fumes off the shoes - probably best not to click them together quite so hard


I would advise caution.

Its not as if, on the bra clasp for example, that RS is only in the frame as a result of a hit when a sample was matched to a large database and has no other 'connection' with the crime.

And Stefanoni & co still get to defend their analyses in court in a months time. Even if it can't be shown to the courts satisfaction that the analyses is say a ~ '1 in 12 million hit' that doesn't mean it will be thrown out.

We shall see.

 

[shuttlt]

LondonJohn,

Haven't these topics been debated already several times before? Are you fishing for someone to choose one of the old topics to resurrect.

 

[HumanityBlues]

My My

A lot of very emotional posts/arguments being made here today - Idiots galore and half of Italy going to jail !
Must be the fumes off the shoes - probably best not to click them together quite so hard


I would advise caution.

Its not as if, on the bra clasp for example, that RS is only in the frame as a result of a hit when a sample was matched to a large database and has no other 'connection' with the crime.

And Stefanoni & co still get to defend their analyses in court in a months time. Even if it can't be shown to the courts satisfaction that the analyses is say a ~ '1 in 12 million hit' that doesn't mean it will be thrown out.

We shall see.

I'm sure you're right and that Stefanoni and the other forensic people for the prosecutor will convince Hellman the independent experts are wrong and they didn't **** up. Mmmhmm.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is this a sensible question? If there is evidence for guilt beyond reasonable doubt then it is presumably fairly well indexed in the Mignini report.

Or were you asking Pilot to provide a single post argument summarizing his/her reasoning from this evidence to guilt (assuming that he/she still believes in guilt) that is sufficiently complete that it doesn't immedietly get him/her compulsively mauled for giving an incomplete argument? I very much doubt that this can be done by anyone not neurotically obsessed with the case, and perhaps not even then.

At the very least it seems sensible to give people who believe in guilt a bit of time to think their position through based on recent developments.

I presume you mean the Massei Report. If so, then referring to that report as a de facto summary of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has (in my opinion) long been dismissed as ludicrous. Nearly every point "reasoned" by Massei and his court has been shown to be either completely wrong, contradictory, or at best marginal (but in such cases, Massei almost invariably chooses to take the path that implies guilt).

Second, no, I'm not asking for a fully-formed argument for guilt. I'm just asking that people enter into some sort of decent, open debate about why they believe Knox/Sollecito to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your point about considering today's events is well made; and I would be fine with someone saying something along the lines of "Well, I was convinced of guilt, but I need some time to think about the implications of today's news".

Third, if people are going to go to the trouble of posting on internet forums which are debating the case, I personally would expect them to a) have a point of view, and b) be prepared to present and debate their reasoning behind that point of view. Isn't that what these kinds of forums are explicitly here to do? Therefore, if somebody appears here and states, unequivocally, that (s)he thinks Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty (and guilty = guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), then I would expect them to have some reasons why they hold this belief. I don't think that this is to onerous an expectation, but others might disagree I guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Haven't these topics been debated already several times before? Are you fishing for someone to choose one of the old topics to resurrect.

Well, firstly, be in no doubt that these topics will be raised again in the appeal trial. And secondly, yes: even if they've been debated before, they are still extremely germane to the case.

So if somebody posted here saying something like: "Despite the apparent findings of the DNA report, I still think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, because 1) I believe that the partial footprint in the bathroom is Sollecito's, and 2) I believe Quintavalle's testimony is accurate and reliable", then I would a) respect that person's position as a starting point for debate, and b) believe that person to be willing to debate in good faith, with an open mind.

 

[lionking]

Third, if people are going to go to the trouble of posting on internet forums which are debating the case, I personally would expect them to a) have a point of view, and b) be prepared to present and debate their reasoning behind that point of view. Isn't that what these kinds of forums are explicitly here to do? Therefore, if somebody appears here and states, unequivocally, that (s)he thinks Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty (and guilty = guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), then I would expect them to have some reasons why they hold this belief. I don't think that this is to onerous an expectation, but others might disagree I guess.

I'll bear that in mind when you open an internet forum and set up the rules. In the meantime........

 

[shuttlt]

I presume you mean the Massei Report.

yes. Funny slip, no?

If so, then referring to that report as a de facto summary of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has (in my opinion) long been dismissed as ludicrous. Nearly every point "reasoned" by Massei and his court has been shown to be either completely wrong, contradictory, or at best marginal (but in such cases, Massei almost invariably chooses to take the path that implies guilt).

The reasoning one can take or leave. Perhaps some people go with it.

Second, no, I'm not asking for a fully-formed argument for guilt. I'm just asking that people enter into some sort of decent, open debate about why they believe Knox/Sollecito to be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your point about considering today's events is well made; and I would be fine with someone saying something along the lines of "Well, I was convinced of guilt, but I need some time to think about the implications of today's news".

Third, if people are going to go to the trouble of posting on internet forums which are debating the case, I personally would expect them to a) have a point of view, and b) be prepared to present and debate their reasoning behind that point of view. Isn't that what these kinds of forums are explicitly here to do? Therefore, if somebody appears here and states, unequivocally, that (s)he thinks Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty (and guilty = guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), then I would expect them to have some reasons why they hold this belief. I don't think that this is to onerous an expectation, but others might disagree I guess.

Most of the reasons for peoples beliefs on the case have been debated to death. The way you asked the question just seemed to me to bit a bit rhetorical, perhaps I was wrong again. I don't think people should be compelled to debate the same issues over and over.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I'm pleased to see this development. Ever since the evidence regarding the time of death was brought to my attention, I've been very much inclined to believe that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it. PhantomWolf made an excellent post summarising the position - the sort of post that it seems those supporting guilt can't muster. I've never seen any argument advanced which seriously called the time of death evidence into question.

The corollary to that is that two young people are spending what should be wonderful years of their lives banged up in jail - and however flaky they are, innocent people do not deserve that. If this development is enough to get them released on bail for the remainder of the legal process, then that's excellent news.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

My My

A lot of very emotional posts/arguments being made here today - Idiots galore and half of Italy going to jail !
Must be the fumes off the shoes - probably best not to click them together quite so hard


I would advise caution.

Its not as if, on the bra clasp for example, that RS is only in the frame as a result of a hit when a sample was matched to a large database and has no other 'connection' with the crime.

And Stefanoni & co still get to defend their analyses in court in a months time. Even if it can't be shown to the courts satisfaction that the analyses is say a ~ '1 in 12 million hit' that doesn't mean it will be thrown out.

We shall see.

I don't think you understand what the report apparently says about the bra clasp. You might benefit from reading the English translations again (hint: the report apparently states not only that the match to Sollecito was likely erroneous*, but also that there was ample scope for contamination).

* DNA matching is not always as exact a science as many people believe (or would like to believe). There is often plenty of scope for interpretation (and misinterpretation) of the source data. This appears to have happened in this instance, according to Conti's/Vecchiotto's report.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll bear that in mind when you open an internet forum and set up the rules. In the meantime........

So what would you say is the objective of this thread?

I would say that it is to debate the case against Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito) - specifically with regard to whether people believe Knox/Sollecito to be guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, or whether people believe that they are not guilty of that crime.

But you might have a different view of what this thread is about and why it's here. Would you be interested in sharing that view?