It doesn't seem to be the same thing to me. They probably did expect it to come back on their side. Normally with such a test of a psychic you get them to admit ahead of time that they can see no reason why the test would fail and agree that failure in the test is their claim having failed. It's a different think to say that any time a psychic's predictions are proved wrong, particularly if they don't claim to be infallible that they have to accept it as proof that their claims are false.
If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I was careful not to say that they have to accept the Conti-Vecchiotti report as proof that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. (Although, frankly, the sooner they come to that conclusion, the better.
It is written: "Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you.")
What I said was that they should have doubts. They should
notice their confusion. The ability to be confused is a precious thing. "If you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge."
Pro-innocence people have confidently predicted stuff will happen before now and been proved wrong - I remember a point when Massei was supposedly about to throw the case out.
This is a legitimate criticism of the people who predicted that! Their model of the world clearly wasn't working right. Since I wasn't part of the public discussions of the case back then, I'm actually quite curious: when was this supposed point?
Granted, it's hindsight now, but it seems to me that if you wanted to predict the outcome of the first trial, you should have looked at the rulings Massei made and the reasons he gave. Denying the independent review (how foolish that looks now!) and using the slander trial as grounds for introducing Amanda's statements should have been huge warning signs.
(
We change our minds less often than we think. Massei had very probably made up his mind at the very beginning, just as Hellmann has already probably long decided what the verdict in the appeal is going to be. The way they run the trial can be presumed to be geared toward
making it look as much as possible like their initial decision was the inevitable outcome of what was presented in court. This is almost certainly a better model to use for predicting court decisions than the actual merits of the case.)
Point 1 seems wrong to me. None of us have knowledge of whether they are actually innocent.
As an aside, this is the
fallacy of gray. We do not need to have literal 100% certainty to be able to say "we know they are innocent".
The issue is whether on the basis of the evidence they would convict. Surely in point 1 you are actually saying that the judge and the jury made an unreasonable decision? Isn't the comparison between deciding that Massei is unreasonable/incompetent/working to an agenda/... after the fact and doing the same with these experts.
Unfortuantely, I don't quite understand these sentences, because they aren't coherent. I'm not "saying" anything in point 1. (Actually I assume you meant point 1', but I can't be sure.) Point 1' is the claim that jury verdicts are always (or inevitably, or almost always, depending on how subtle you want to make the discussion) correct. What I "said" was that you can't
simultaneously believe that
and that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Which is obviously true. I then proceeded to point out that claim 1' is likely false: juries are made up of fallible humans, average people with no particular expertise in judging whether or not someone committed a crime. (Note: This includes judges! A knowledge of jurisprudence is not the same as the ability to tell a fact from a hole in the ground regarding what happened at a particular cottage on a particular night.) By contrast, claim 1 (not 1') is likely
true: scientists
do have special expertise in their area of study, and the scientific process is remarkably good at distinguishing truth from falsehood relative to other human institutions.
I think the claim was that it was US biased, not exclusively US . Anyway, it was a preliminary observation from PMF based on a few pages. If that doesn't pan out I'm sure they'll think of something else.
That should be troubling!
, am I right or what? I think so and as confirmation I expect you to not provide your own definition for very many posts of pointless meandering. You confirm? 
? No wonder he posted that article under nickname..