Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

You know, I was beginning to think I had seen it all from the guilters.

However they're now circulating an anonymous blog post claiming that the mafia has repeatedly and flamboyantly "inserted itself" into the Knox case (make of that phrase what you will) and that this is a matter of public record. You will no doubt be astounded to hear that citations are not included to allow one to verify that these public records exist.

Apparently they are trying to get Knox off in order to get rid of unspecified members of the "current regime" in Perugia, implied to include Mignini who has apparently attracted their wrath by being far too ethical, effective and all-around awesome.

I look forward to the follow-up reports that explain that the mafia changed the laws of physics in order to slow Meredith's digestion, rigged the international standards for DNA collection and analysis to exclude Stefanoni's evidence, framed Curatolo for drug dealing years in advance to discredit his testimony, moved Amanda's lamp to throw Mignini off the scent and sabotaged the tape recorders in the interrogation rooms so Knox and Sollecito's interrogations could not be recorded.

 

[HumanityBlues]

You know, I was beginning to think I had seen it all from the guilters.

However they're now circulating an anonymous blog post claiming that the mafia has repeatedly and flamboyantly "inserted itself" into the Knox case (make of that phrase what you will) and that this is a matter of public record. You will no doubt be astounded to hear that citations are not included to allow one to verify that these public records exist.

Apparently they are trying to get Knox off in order to get rid of unspecified members of the "current regime" in Perugia, implied to include Mignini who has apparently attracted their wrath by being far too ethical, effective and all-around awesome.

I look forward to the follow-up reports that explain that the mafia changed the laws of physics in order to slow Meredith's digestion, rigged the international standards for DNA collection and analysis to exclude Stefanoni's evidence, framed Curatolo for drug dealing years in advance to discredit his testimony, moved Amanda's lamp to throw Mignini off the scent and sabotaged the tape recorders in the interrogation rooms so Knox and Sollecito's interrogations could not be recorded.

If you look at the "anonymous blog"'s past posts, you'll find this person believes the motive to kill Meredith was "ethnic cleansing". So of course I give this person's mafia musings instance credibility....

Keep in mind, I have been told that this is that moderator's favorite blogger.

 

[HumanityBlues]

double post

 

[HumanityBlues]

At any rate, since you ask:



Here are a couple of highlights:

- Ganong has all but endorsed a mafia conspiracy theory to explain the current direction of the case.

- Quennell has, exceptionally, made a statement that I agree with, in praising Alan Dershowitz's comments on the Piers Morgan show -- only to immediately reveal his completely warped and distorted perception of said comments. Quennell thinks Dershowitz was criticizing the philosophy behind the American legal system when he said that verdicts weren't supposed to be about "truth and justice", when in fact he was doing just the opposite. Dershowitz pointed out that the legal system is a complex compromise between competing values, and that the high standard for conviction derives from the principle that "it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be unjustly confined" -- of which occasional acquittals of the guilty are an inevitable result. (Evidently Quennell doesn't endorse this principle, but as far as I know Dershowitz does.)

Also, while browsing the archives for information about the split, I came across this cretinous tidbit from "Michael" regarding the Wikipedia controversy (emphasis added):



Here we have explicitly articulated statement of the guilter idea that court decisions have such an exalted level of authority in society than any criticism of them is ipso facto marginal. This is ridiculous on its face: some court decisions are extremely controversial, and there can be no legitimate excuse for suppressing mention of such controversy from encyclopedia articles on such cases. Not only is it ridiculous (and dangerously authoritarian), it is also disingenuous, because there is absolutely no way that these people would apply this "principle" to every single court decision, in every place, at every time in history. Some court rulings are simply absurd, and widely recognized as such. Yet they are for some reason very eager to suppress mention of disputes and criticisms related to the Kercher case, which I daresay is behavior that is emblematic of a "lobby group" with an "agenda".

If one is willing to give total, unquestioning deference to the courts, why not other branches of government? The Indiana state legislature once infamously considered adopting a bill declaring that pi is equal to 3. If that bill had passed, would Wikipedia be obliged to agree that, while pi may be irrational in most of the world, it is an integer in Indiana? I've heard rumors from time to time that certain government agencies have decreed that tomatoes are not fruits; if this is so, should Wikipedia's biological entries be amended to stay in conformity with the "established facts"?

Nonsense, drivel, poppycock, idiotic humbug of the first order.

Wikipedia has a major problem in that it is populated by people who want to edit encyclopedia articles for free. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just keep them away from my dinner party.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Also agree on the thread veering off topic, but while the news is still fresh, I thought I'd throw in my two cents ...

Based on my own research on this case, and yes the wikipedia page, the forensics team found google searches for chloroform, and "how to make chloroform". As an organic chemist, I'm a little skeptical about anyone making chloroform in their kitchen, but it is found industrially and not too difficult to obtain. That chloroform was found in Casey's trunk (and in Caylee's body), means it came from somewhere. The defense's claim that chloroform is present in bleach, I don't think has any basis in reality, particularly in significant quantities. (The defense claims Caylee died in a swimming pool accident, covered up by Casey's father).

The innocent explanation for the google searches was that one of the family dogs was sick, and that Casey's mom was really searching for information on chlorophyll, as she believed that would be why the dog is sick. That claim was never supported by the forensics computer searching. It's interesting that even a week ago, Casey's parents stated they believed Casey was "not innocent", but they would "do all they can to avoid her getting the death penalty".

You have a number of facts wrong about the chloroform business, but this has all been addressed in detail by others in the Casey Anthony thread, so I won't repeat any of the arguments here.

Casey's June 21 diary entry was particularly damning in my opinion:

"I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change"

The year was omitted, and defense claimed it was written in 2003 (before Caylee was born). But an FBI analyst determined that the style of diary wasn't even created until 2004, by a specific printing company (Penman Paper). Not sure how heavily the diary was considered in the trial.

To be honest, I don't see how this is particularly damning at all. I think you're interpreting it through a guilt filter rather than considering it rationally. It could mean almost anything. "The end justifies the means" is a well-worn cliché that isn't necessarily indicative of any sort of wrong-doing at all. If it can't even be dated as definitely from 2008 it's completely worthless, in my opinion. This just isn't good evidence one way or the other.

I'm kind leaning towards being a "guilter" when it comes to Casey Anthony, but maybe I'm not seeing the bigger picture, or the reasonable doubt if there was some, somewhere ... I'll shut up about this case now!

There's plenty of reasonable doubt. The chloroform scenario is actually quite weak on evidence. My suspicion is that she was involved in the death, based on her behavior of not reporting her own child's disappearance for a month without any reasonable explanation, which suggests to me that she's covering something up. But I can't be sure it was a homicide. In any case, Caylee drowning in the pool due to her mother's negligence seems far more likely to me than a chloroform poisoning murder plot.

 

[HumanityBlues]

At any rate, since you ask:

Here are a couple of highlights:

- Ganong has all but endorsed a mafia conspiracy theory to explain the current direction of the case.

- Quennell has, exceptionally, made a statement that I agree with, in praising Alan Dershowitz's comments on the Piers Morgan show -- only to immediately reveal his completely warped and distorted perception of said comments. Quennell thinks Dershowitz was criticizing the philosophy behind the American legal system when he said that verdicts weren't supposed to be about "truth and justice", when in fact he was doing just the opposite. Dershowitz pointed out that the legal system is a complex compromise between competing values, and that the high standard for conviction derives from the principle that "it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be unjustly confined" -- of which occasional acquittals of the guilty are an inevitable result. (Evidently Quennell doesn't endorse this principle, but as far as I know Dershowitz does.)

It's reactions like this that make me think they really do know the Independent Expert report is the beginning of the end.

Dershowitz also spoke after the Knox verdict:

"Alan Dershowitz, a criminal defence lawyer and Harvard University law professor, dismissed the verdict as "totally predictable" and the trial merely a "confirmation of the investigation", he said. "We are the only country in the world that has a real jury system." cite

New York Times goes more in depth about his thoughts on the case.

I guarantee Peter Quennell won't be quoting Alan Dershowitz next fall.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If you look at the "anonymous blog"'s past posts, you'll find this person believes the motive to kill Meredith was "ethnic cleansing". So of course I give this person's mafia musings instance credibility....

Keep in mind, I have been told that this is that moderator's favorite blogger.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/b63w1.png[/qimg]

Finally, we have a motive!

 

[Rolfe]

I got banned from PMF for some relatively innocuous comments. Now I can't even access their site so it would be nice if posters with access can update the shenanigans in their quest for justice.

Oh wow. I've been reading that thread in the past few days, and I saw you come into it. I realised you were new, and giving these people some rational counter-arguments to their entrenched position. I also saw you were perfectly polite about it (if mildly snarky with the middle name thing).

So I wondered, as an observer, what would happen. Any open-minded forum should welcome such contributions, and be able to debate them rationally. But I'd heard that the PMF isn't like that, and bans dissenting voices on sight. In my book, any debate that does that is automatically lost (guess how many times I've been banned from homoeopathy forums....).

I also noticed posters on the PMF criticising this JREF thread for being nothing but a "FOAK" love-in, after a series of mass bannings. I wasn't paying much attention when the bannings occurred, but I know nobody on JREF gets banned for the opinions they present, or at least certainly not for arguing guilt in the Kercher murder case! I also note that there are quite a few "guilters" able to post here, it's just that they seldom do and when they do they don't have much of substance to contribute.

So if you've been banned from there, after what I read, then that to me is a huge confirmation of the position that the pro-guilt lobby is based on woo and prejudice, and can't stand up to reasoned debate.

Rolfe.

 

[PhantomWolf]

that to me is a huge confirmation of the position that the pro-guilt lobby is based on woo and prejudice, and can't stand up to reasoned debate.

To me the fact that not a single believer in guilt has yet answered my challenge to say what would change their belief to Reasonable Doubt and so falisfy their position is pretty telling too. I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

 

[Mary_H]

If you look at the "anonymous blog"'s past posts, you'll find this person believes the motive to kill Meredith was "ethnic cleansing". So of course I give this person's mafia musings instance credibility....

Keep in mind, I have been told that this is that moderator's favorite blogger.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/b63w1.png[/qimg]

Let me guess. Button is Jewish.

 

[RoseMontague]

I also noticed posters on the PMF criticising this JREF thread for being nothing but a "FOAK" love-in, after a series of mass bannings. I wasn't paying much attention when the bannings occurred, but I know nobody on JREF gets banned for the opinions they present, or at least certainly not for arguing guilt in the Kercher murder case! I also note that there are quite a few "guilters" able to post here, it's just that they seldom do and when they do they don't have much of substance to contribute.

So if you've been banned from there, after what I read, then that to me is a huge confirmation of the position that the pro-guilt lobby is based on woo and prejudice, and can't stand up to reasoned debate.

Rolfe.

I have seen this mass ban claim before and I don't know what they are talking about. The most I have seen at one time is three and that involved 1 on the side of innocence. Maybe three is considered a "mass"??

There has been what I consider a mass suspension but that involved posters from the side of innocence and were part of the Groundhog day massacre:

Bruce Fisher:
CDHost:
Charlie Wilkes:
Chris C:
Justinian2:
Kaosium:
LondonJohn:
Mary_H:
Onofarar:

Maybe the mass ban of those on the side of guilt happened before I joined if somebody could point to this I would appreciate it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mind changers

To me the fact that not a single believer in guilt has yet answered my challenge to say what would change their belief to Reasonable Doubt and so falisfy their position is pretty telling too. I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

PhantomWolf,

if the putative semen stain tested positive for Raffaele's DNA (in an independent lab) or if opening the knife had shown Meredith's blood, I would assume that A and R are guilty.

 

[Dan O.]

It actually does -- at least it did for me back in December -- but there are ways around.

Incidentally, for some reason I no longer need to resort to such back doors, and can access normally. I wonder if it has to do with the split...

If you are on DSL or cable, you almost certainly have a dynamic IP address. It often only takes cycling power on the modem for it to forget the old address and get a new lease. But don't go advertising this, we wouldn't want to help people evade IP blocks.

 

[Paninaro]

PhantomWolf,

if the putative semen stain tested positive for Raffaele's DNA (in an independent lab) or if opening the knife had shown Meredith's blood, I would assume that A and R are guilty.

A detailed confession from either Knox or Sollecito or a coherent story from Guede that agreed with the facts of the case would convince me of their guilt, aside from the hard evidence you pointed out.

If Guede had any company that evening of the dead he would be able to provide such a story. Of course he can't cause he was there alone. As a matter of fact, he can't construct that story even given the facts of the case in hindsight. It's an impossible task. There was no friend present; for many reasons beside the obvious lack of traces of him, there was no mobster on the hunt for a drug debt and there were no Knox/Sollecito couple.

There were just Rudy Guede, alone, and he killed Meredith Kercher. There's no mystery at all to this. Everything is just what it looks like.

 

[Dan O.]

if the putative semen stain tested positive for Raffaele's DNA (in an independent lab) or if opening the knife had shown Meredith's blood, I would assume that A and R are guilty.

Why didn't the prosecution want to see the knife opened?

A negative result would be neutral since there could be other factors that prevent blood from getting into the crack. A positive result would normally be damning to the defense. But a positive result in conjunction with a solid alibi would condem the prosecution. The prosecution has already read the appeal and has had a chance to verify the computer alibi. If they already verified the alibi, there is no way at this point that they would want new evidence showing up on an item that they already have a record of questionable handling which could be interpreted as evidence tampering.

 

[Rolfe]

To me the fact that not a single believer in guilt has yet answered my challenge to say what would change their belief to Reasonable Doubt and so falisfy their position is pretty telling too. I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

Certainly, my position is that the whole scenario as suggested by the prosecution is fantastical in the extreme. Ritual murder on All Saints' Day, "now we will make you have sex", the idea of these three people somehow teaming up to commit such an act - it's ludicrous on the face of it. And the repeatedly-changing prosecution scenarios don't help - one minute Amanda is the wielder of the knife, and the next she's just directing the play from outside the room, and so on.

But ludicrous things do happen. So I'm looking for the sort of evidence that will substantiate the allegations, or even make them seem plausible, but I'm not finding it. Instead I find the prosecution timing the death at 11.40 when it clearly happened more than two hours before that. And I find that while there's copious evidence of the presence of Rudy Guede at the scene, the evidence for the presence of Knox and Sollecito is much much slimmer, to the point of being highly questionable. We're being asked to believe in some sort of cunning "selective clean-up" where the guilty pair somehow knew exactly where to clean to remove the traces of their own presence, but leave those of Guede. That smacks of the impossible to me.

It's also highly suspicious that the police jumped to the conclusion that this very improbable event had happened, and then found the evidence to corroborate it - even to the point of selectively going back and finding what they needed to sustain the accusations after certain original pieces of evidence had fallen through.

This, to me, adds up to an enormous heap of extremely reasonable doubt. In fact, I'd say it was "innocent on the balance of probabilities", at the very least. Which leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that two young people are having their lives ruined over a false accusation.

What would it take to make me more convinced of guilt? Some actual evidence, rather than just the observation that Amanda Knox is an idiot and said and did some very stupid things. To make me believe guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt? Some very strong, incontrovertible evidence. I think it's unlikely anything like that will be forthcoming at this stage in the game, though.

if the putative semen stain tested positive for Raffaele's DNA (in an independent lab) or if opening the knife had shown Meredith's blood, I would assume that A and R are guilty.

A detailed confession from either Knox or Sollecito or a coherent story from Guede that agreed with the facts of the case would convince me of their guilt, aside from the hard evidence you pointed out.

Yeah, that would do it. So long as the confession was compos mentis and not coerced.

Rolfe.

 

[Dan O.]

A detailed confession from either Knox or Sollecito or a coherent story from Guede that agreed with the facts of the case would convince me of their guilt, aside from the hard evidence you pointed out.

A confession, whether given freely or extracted through interrogation, needs independent corroboration to validate it. In the case of an extracted confession, "facts" that the police already know will not do because the police are a part of the interrogation that produced the confession. Similarly, a confession that includes facts that have already been published does not verify those facts.

 

[Danceme]

To me the fact that not a single believer in guilt has yet answered my challenge to say what would change their belief to Reasonable Doubt and so falisfy their position is pretty telling too. I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

I can't say I was a "believer in guilt", (I always had a small amount of doubt) but I leaned more towards it in the past than I do now. I now have reasonable doubt. This came about from the time of death arguments indicating Meredith died much earlier than the prosecution asserted but if anything should happen to negate this argument I can very easily lean back, or if the 'semen' stain on testing turned out to be Raffaele's, game over.

I know there are alternate explanations for most all other bits of evidence including the stupid lies and multiple contradictions in their alibi stories but they happen to make alot of sense looked at just as they are from a guilter perspective too.

I don't think there are many die-hard guilters on this forum to answer your question. The way I see it is that if you are one of those, you're a PMFer through and through and would have little use for a forum where the vast majority are convinced of innocence. I think most "guilters" here have doubt, but how much, I don't know.

 

[Onofarar]

I have seen this mass ban claim before and I don't know what they are talking about. The most I have seen at one time is three and that involved 1 on the side of innocence. Maybe three is considered a "mass"??

There has been what I consider a mass suspension but that involved posters from the side of innocence and were part of the Groundhog day massacre:

Bruce Fisher:
CDHost:
Charlie Wilkes:
Chris C:
Justinian2:
Kaosium:
LondonJohn:
Mary_H:
Onofarar:

Maybe the mass ban of those on the side of guilt happened before I joined if somebody could point to this I would appreciate it.[/QUOTE

Those on the above list got suspensions varying from 3 days to a month.

In addition, two posters were banned - withnail1969 (pro-innocence) and treehorn (pro-guilt). Both were making very personal attacks in clear violation of the MOA. It was not the first violation for either thus the ban.

Personally, it was a learning experience - I allowed myself to be baited by a pro-guilt poster and said some nasty things. I avoid responding to that poster now - although have not seen her in a while (since the DNA report release). I was NOT suspended for my position on guilt / innocence but for personal attacks that violated the MOA.

BTW - anyone interested in researching who is banned should access the original thread and first continuation. Any banned poster has a banned tag by all his posts . I think Fulcanelli is banned for instance.

 

[Antony]

To me the fact that not a single believer in guilt has yet answered my challenge to say what would change their belief to Reasonable Doubt and so falisfy their position is pretty telling too. I am positive that if I asked those that believed in innocence all of them could suggest evidence that would move them to guilt, even now.

It would have to be evidence that has been mysteriously hidden from public view for the last 3½ years - as well as a number of what currently appear to be facts, turning out not to be facts at all.