Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Whoosh

OK that's an even better example [ in that ....it perfectly sums up the arguments for innocence].

If it's not amenable via google it's a mystery !

Is it more important to you to seem erudite than to convey your message?

 

[platonov]

Is it more important to you to seem erudite than to convey your message?

Not at all* - unless your defn. of erudite differs from mine.

I didn't introduce the chess analogy, the 'idiots' stuff was pretty obvious - and almost funny, but I would say that

Again it highlights the difference between speaking of what one knows/understands versus googling and regurgitating.

ps Are you sure the Zimmerman ref's were just pretension ? Birds of a feather and all that.


* Although TBH in certain company one regards it as a given - but that's no great reflection on me. I should as soon be proud of beating a chicken at tic-tac-toe.

 

[theRealBob]

1) Did PMF just now argue *twice* somewhere saying something ever so sanctimonious *sounding* like "hiding nothing" or "truth setting free".

2) Forgive me if my 'dissertation less' research skills do not match yours, that I sincerely admire.
But if PMF just also did just make these same lofty *sounding* but 'inaccurate' claims.....I did not see them.
If you found PMF saying same, then and only then should my reply include any reference to PMF as you argue now.

Additionally, I did not start PMF, nor can I even now accomplish miniscule modifications to that Board and its policy.

Surely you would agree Mr Fisher is not comparably constrained with his own IIP.
Is He ???

Different 'kettles' indeed' and only one by making the sadly inaccurate sanctimonious statements has blackened itself.

ETA
Since I rarely if ever find a need to use neither IIP Forum or IIP website, to me 'IIP' as referenced above on this *Forum* referred to IIP Forum.

If information is 'hidden' at IIP whatever one you chose to now use, my criticism of your sanctimonious statements inthe argument as inaccurate is fully justified and I stick with it.

Kinda like *someone* (guess who) going to all the trouble to create a PMF.com website to deliberately confuse others and then even bragging about how 'clever' that was in arguments on this very board

This is one of the pettiest arguments in a long time. The awkwardly placed emoticons don't help either.

At times you could also think that the entire placing of all the suspect evidence, dodgy witnesses etc on the side of guilt for R & A by Mignini, Commodi, PMF'ers etc also ranks among the pettiest of arguments of all time on an ongoing daily basis.
I've just been on PMF now and it strangely made me glad that I'm banned...again....and again, and again and again....and again, and again....again...

as usual, for nothing much of course...

 

[HumanityBlues]

At times you could also think that the entire placing of all the suspect evidence, dodgy witnesses etc on the side of guilt for R & A by Mignini, Commodi, PMF'ers etc also ranks among the pettiest of arguments of all time on an ongoing daily basis.
I've just been on PMF now and it makes me glad I'm banned...again....and again, and again and again....and again, and again....again...

Pilot Padron has no interest in arguing about the case. He is a true believer and would rather use this board to air out his fixated grievances with this forum and Bruce Fisher's website.

 

[theRealBob]

Pilot Padron has no interest in arguing about the case. He is a true believer and would rather use this board to air out his fixated grievances with this forum and Bruce Fisher's website.

I have always found the polarisation of the distinctive personality types on each of the two sides of the debate to be quite revealing...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nimzowitsch and the fianchettoed bishops

Justinian2,

A Chess match, especially the Fischer/Spassky match would not be not the proper analogy for the trial of first instance. It was more like watching a movie about a chess match.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I have always found the polarisation of the distinctive personality types on each of the two sides of the debate to be quite revealing...

I think the transparency is obvious. He tried on June 29th, the day the Independent report's conclusions were revealed, to tell us (really just convince himself) that the report was "neutral at best". Pahhhhl-lease. Then, coincidentally, he just said "adios". He has no real argument about the report other than the babbling nonsense of PMF cohorts that no one takes seriously. If he wants to go down with that ship, that's his choice.

These people pretend like they have such respect for the system and for Italy no matter how ridiculous it gets......when it's going their way. Now all of the sudden, Massei is actually Hellmann's superior. The independent experts are owned by and phone calling the FOA to do their review (give me a break). They don't respect the system or Italy at all.

Then this guy pilot has the nerve to talk about class all the time, meanwhile his favorite pmf.net has a nice little roundabout discussion on the intelligence of Steve Moore's children, and how they must be dumb because of genetics. I kid you not, go read it. Meanwhile these kids, as far as I know, have never said a word publicly about the case or anything else publicly for that matter and are probably minors. I feel sorry for them for even being discussed in that dark cesspool of a forum. It's so gross and weird. Just disgusting.

Now the only argument they have left is that Bruce's site makes you register to see some pictures. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[Mary_H]

Not at all* - unless your defn. of erudite differs from mine.

I didn't introduce the chess analogy, the 'idiots' stuff was pretty obvious - and almost funny, but I would say that

Nimzowitsch is not obvious unless one is a chess player; maybe not even then. Belka is not obvious unless one is Soviet or studies aeronautics.

Again it highlights the difference between speaking of what one knows/understands versus googling and regurgitating.

There -- I looked both of them up on Google, and now I know as much as you do. So what? How does it help the conversation? Why would I use the Duwamish River to describe your meandering train of thought when I could just as easily use the Amazon?

Nobody wants to have to go to Google to wade through somebody else's posts any more than they want to click on someone else's innumerable links. Do you think using obscure information makes a better argument somehow?

ps Are you sure the Zimmerman ref's were just pretension ? Birds of a feather and all that.

Took you long enough. That was two days ago. Points for catching it, though.

* Although TBH in certain company one regards it as a given - but that's no great reflection on me. I should as soon be proud of beating a chicken at tic-tac-toe.

Who's the chicken -- Justinian's dog or those of us who toil in the depths of ignorance?

I hate to break it to you, but truly erudite people have values that transcend pure facts.

 

[RandyN]

It does seem strange that the "crack" forensics team involved in this case seemingly don't know how to properly store a piece of textile/metal material with DNA evidence on it, without it deteriorating to the point of uselessness within four years. Surely this shouldn't be beyond the basic competence levels of "world-class" forensic scientists........

Ya put it in a paper bag...fold it over and staple it shut. Place the paper bag in a dry temperature controlled room...

DA DNA will last and last............

 

[theRealBob]

I take it from the chess posts that without any court action our bloggers lives are getting boring.

Who thinks the staged breakin might be Mignini's truly revealing clue for R & A's guilt in the crime ?

I must admit that I noticed an earlier post about the photo's in IIP being helpful in analysing that piece of debated evidence.
I've seen the shots of the guy climbing through the window which does look quite simple really. Strangely enough though the rest of the photos there, of the house from all angles, makes Filomena's room appear unlikely to be a chosen means of entry.

And

there's a fabulous slideshow just posted on TJFMK, where the photo of the house makes it one of the most ideal looking places for a burglar to think about, you can imagine...

 

[Onofarar]

By the way, I chuckle heartily at the thought of Steve Moore "buckling" and accepting a settlement from Pepperdine in order to save himself from a drubbing in court.

The internal logical flaw in this argument is easy to see: if Pepperdine thought they would probably win a wrongful dismissal suit in court, they would never offer a settlement, and would instead tell Moore that they would see him in court. Similarly, if Moore thought he was being offered a settlement substantially below that which he could obtain through a court victory, he would decline the settlement and take things on to court. And lastly, if Moore had been advised that he didn't have a strong case against Pepperdine (which, if that had been the case, he should have been advised of very early in the process by his legal representative), he would almost certainly not have pursued a legal action in the first place - the cost risk to him (and/or his insurers) would simply have been far too high.

LJ, overall I agree with you but you are applying UK civil suit rules that do not apply in the USA. The USA is one of only two countries (I think the other is Nauru - a small island country in the Pacific) that allows contingency fees in such cases. Therefore, Moore did not face any costs if he lost - loser pays does NOT apply here. Second, as a result of our contingency fee structure, the first test of any large single plaintiff suit is whether a decent attorney will take it. Any case that is creditable is like the "is the pasta done?" test (throw a strand on the wall and if it sticks = its done). If an attorney does not think he can win the case or better yet it is not likely to be settled out for a significant percentage of the amount of damages specified in the suit will NOT take the case - after all who wants to work for free? BTW - If Moore had such a weak case as has been suggested by the group you have aptly named "the idiots" then why didn't the judge find for the defendant on the summary judgement motion. Also, the fact that Moore's attorney was ready to go to trial on August 15th and did not ask for a delay is also indicative of the strength rather than the weakness of Moore's case.

 

[RandyN]

Not at all* - unless your defn. of erudite differs from mine.

I didn't introduce the chess analogy, the 'idiots' stuff was pretty obvious - and almost funny, but I would say that

Again it highlights the difference between speaking of what one knows/understands versus googling and regurgitating.

ps Are you sure the Zimmerman ref's were just pretension ? Birds of a feather and all that.


* Although TBH in certain company one regards it as a given - but that's no great reflection on me. I should as soon be proud of beating a chicken at tic-tac-toe.

I have yet to understand one of this persons posts. The question is does he need to dumb it down or smarten it up?

Pilot....you can register at IIP and post anything you like there as well. No one will ban you for disagreeing with anyone. Can the same be said for PMF? 3 guesses and first two dont count. HINT ....the answer is no. All people who think AK, RS are innocent are banned from PMF. They actually ban your IP address.

So what is superior about that site?

 

[komponisto]

I have yet to understand one of this persons posts. The question is does he need to dumb it down or smarten it up?

Pilot....you can register at IIP and post anything you like there as well. No one will ban you for disagreeing with anyone. Can the same be said for PMF? 3 guesses and first two dont count. HINT ....the answer is no. All people who think AK, RS are innocent are banned from PMF. They actually ban your IP address.

And what is most disgusting is that they don't admit that they do this. Every time they ban someone for disagreement, they invent some transparently phony rationalization. Nowhere on PMF is it stated that the forum is reserved for guilters; its members go around calling it "a place where people come together to politely discuss the Kercher case" or some such baloney. This is dishonest in the extreme. IIP is a complete contrast: not only is it explicit in that it is a place for believers in innocence, it also has a special public forum where all viewpoints are permitted!

There isn't anything wrong with having a forum exclusively for people of one particular viewpoint. Why do they feel the need to dishonestly pretend that that isn't what theirs is?

 

[komponisto]

I have always found the polarisation of the distinctive personality types on each of the two sides of the debate to be quite revealing...

An astute observation. I currently suspect that personality may be among the biggest determiners of a person's viewpoint on this case.

This is especially likely to be so when you correct for the inevitable truth that some people who claim to believe in guilt actually don't anymore, but are merely rehearsing the arguments to themselves to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Now the only argument they have left is that Bruce's site makes you register to see some pictures. It's getting ridiculous.

Even more that it's not true:

new photo gallery

downloads section, updated with more documents

Huge thanks for Bruce and Charlie Wilkes for their work.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So pilot padron, platonov...

What evidence would convince you to accept reasonable doubt in this case?

 

[lionking]

So pilot padron, platonov...

What evidence would convince you to accept reasonable doubt in this case?

For goodness sake, you are getting perilously close to spamming. Evidence for guilt has been posted countless times. You don't accept that evidence, fair enough, but please stop trolling.

 

[Justinian2]

For goodness sake, you are getting perilously close to spamming. Evidence for guilt has been posted countless times. You don't accept that evidence, fair enough, but please stop trolling.

There is NO evidence except that which incriminates Guede (the footprints, etc).

The prosecution has been proven wrong so many times about Amanda, how could we possibly ever believe anything that has been said or will be said about her or Raffaele?

 

[Justinian2]

Justinian2,

A Chess match, especially the Fischer/Spassky match would not be not the proper analogy for the trial of first instance. It was more like watching a movie about a chess match.

The proper analogy for the trial of first instance would probably be a video of feeding amoeba -- except that amoeba move faster than the court -- but the envelopment process is similar.

 

[Katody Matrass]

For goodness sake, you are getting perilously close to spamming. Evidence for guilt has been posted countless times. You don't accept that evidence, fair enough, but please stop trolling.

Hmmm... I think you've misread PhantomWolf's question. Which is very good BTW.

What would convince you?