Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's trolling to ask people what would falsify their beliefs on a skeptics forum? That must be a new definition I haven't heard of before. Of course if they'd answer, I'd stop asking too.

So Lionking, what evidence would it take to make you belief in guilt one of reasonable doubt? Or is your belief unfalsifiable too?
 
PhantomWolf said:
It's trolling to ask people what would falsify their beliefs on a skeptics forum? That must be a new definition I haven't heard of before. Of course if they'd answer, I'd stop asking too.

So Lionking, what evidence would it take to make you belief in guilt one of reasonable doubt? Or is your belief unfalsifiable too?
Click to expand...

Evidence has been provided. Search for it. You don't accept it. Big deal. Troll away.
 
lionking said:
My point is that Phantom Wolf has been asking this question many times. It's been answered. It's a rather pathetic attempt at a "gotcha".
Click to expand...

A gotcha? I don't agree. It's a sensible starting point to an on topic discussion about the case.

Just to reiterate - you still seem to misread the question, which was:

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

Judge Hellmann at the beginning of the trial stated that he doesn't share lower court's view that the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement had been satisfied. Do you think that the developments of the ongoing trial work towards fulfilling it?


Here's yet another approach, more in the direction you like:
Do you think that by expressing harsh reservations about virtually every aspect of the work of police force and "Scientifica", on the scene and in the lab, the independent experts subscribed themselves to a conspiracy theory?
Or is it possible that two main pieces of evidence for guilt are invalid because of suspect centric attitude of the investigators, mishandling of the crime scene and general incompetence?
 
lionking said:
My point is that Phantom Wolf has been asking this question many times. It's been answered. It's a rather pathetic attempt at a "gotcha".
Click to expand...

No it hasn't been answered, it's been ignored a lot, and it's not an attempt at a gotcha, it's attempt to discover what it would take to end your belief in guilt. It's attempt to find out if you have a blind unchangable belief or if certain evidence would make you change your mind. The fact you are unwilling to answer it speaks volumes though.
 
lionking said:
Evidence has been provided. Search for it. You don't accept it. Big deal. Troll away.
Click to expand...

Where have you given what evidence would make you accept reasonable doubt? Provide a link if you believe you have done so previously. Thanks.
 
hypothetical video recording

lionking said:
Evidence has been provided. Search for it. You don't accept it. Big deal. Troll away.
Click to expand...
lionking,

With all due respect, I think it is reasonable to ask people what evidence would change their minds. PhantomWolf received answers from pro-innocence commenters, such as a particular result on the semen stain for example, but did not receive the converse. Many months ago the only pro-guilt commenter who answered a similar question was shuttlt, and he said a tape of someone else committing the crime, IIRC. I think that shuttlt set the bar too high (basically asking for proof of innocence), but it is food for thought. Would you accept shuttlt's answer (assuming I have remembered it properly)?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
No matter how hard anyone has tried, experts and amateurs, the results are inconclusive.
Click to expand...

_______________________

Here's what's crackpot about the Rinaldi Report. When determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, Rinaldi had ---at the same moment---the inked impressions of the three suspects feet. So there was confirmation bias back-loaded into his study. Instead, when determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, he should not have seen the inked impressions. He should have first determined, dimensionally, which feet would be consistent with the prints and which would be inconsistent with the prints. Only then should he have been able to see the inked impressions of the suspects' feet.

I wonder whether Rinaldi's results would have been the same had he performed in a scientifically respectable manner.

///
 
Last edited:
confirmation bias

Fine said:
_______________________

Here's what's crackpot about the Rinaldi Report. When determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, Rinaldi had ---at the same moment---the inked impressions of the three suspects feet. So there was confirmation bias back-loaded into his study. Instead, when determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, he should not have seen the inked impressions. He should have first determined, dimensionally, which feet would be consistent with the prints and which would be inconsistent with the prints. Only then should he have been able to see the inked impressions of the suspects' feet.

I wonder whether Rinaldi's results would have been the same had he performed in a scientifically respectable manner.

///
Click to expand...
Fine,

A very good point. Roger Koppl's article "CSI For Real" is a good discussion of investigator bias. In addition I don't believe that Rinaldi even had anyone else's reference prints (Garofano, among others, commented on this). Having the reference prints of Laura, Filomena, and Giacomo would seem to be a good start.
 
Last edited:
sleeper

theRealBob said:
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...
Click to expand...
theRealBob,

I have posted on the DNA forensics and the luminol-positive areas within the last weeks and I am hoping that these will generate follow-up comments. I think that the break-in is something that the defense should revisit. It's kind of a sleeper issue, because in some people's minds, if you prove it, you have sufficient evidence of A and R's involvement at that point. I think that Sgt. Pasquali showed that the rock had to come from outside, but that might not be enough.
 
Last edited:
Hi the real Bob,
I don't think any rational thinking person can truly believe in the staged break in theory. There is definitely evidence of an actual break in, or at least evidence of the rock being thrown from outside.
On a side note, there is one thing that has always bothered me about this case. Are the lay judges or jurors really permitted to think and analyze the evidence. Or are they more for show, as I suspect. I believe they are totally directed by the real judges. After all, their absolutely was reasonable doubt expressed by one juror.
 
halides1 said:
lionking,

With all due respect, I think it is reasonable to ask people what evidence would change their minds. PhantomWolf received answers from pro-innocence commenters, such as a particular result on the semen stain for example, but did not receive the converse. Many months ago the only pro-guilt commenter who answered a similar question was shuttlt, and he said a tape of someone else committing the crime, IIRC. I think that shuttlt set the bar too high (basically asking for proof of innocence), but it is food for thought. Would you accept shuttlt's answer (assuming I have remembered it properly)?
Click to expand...

halides,

LK seems to have missed the point of PW's question and is answering the different question: "what evidence do you have of AK and RS's guilt?"

But ISTR he answered the question some time ago. LK is convinced of guilt because the Massei court found them guilty, and he will change his mind if the Hellman court overturns the Massei verdict. Simples!
 
Setting the record straight

There has been discussion that Charlie Wilkes altered the bathmat photo in attempt to deceive the public. This is completely false.

PMF stated that Charlie admitted altering the photo on the bathmat. This is completely false.


Charlie clears up the confusion: "I adjusted the size of Guede's reference print relative to the bathmat in my overlay, because it is a little too big - as is Sollecito's reference print. This is probably because the print on the mat was made with a lighter step than the reference print. I certainly did not distort the shape by changing one axis of the bitmap, as the discussion on PMF implies."

Note that Charlie states that the reference prints for both Guede and Sollecito are too big. Machine, Kermit and anyone else that has spread falsehoods about Charlie's analysis forgets to inform their readers that both prints needed to be re-sized to do an overlay comparison. Kermit made a laughable powerpoint called something like " I shrunk the black guy" completely ignoring the fact that both prints were re-sized for comparison.
 
pilot padron said:
Unlike others who can actually read minds, I cannot type an edit to a post and read from another poster simultaneously.

Also unlike others, I will readily admit an error when so required.
(halides1 can verify that if needed by anyone not able to recall)

The edit to my above post refers directly to your uhhhh... 'explanation'... in your last argument made while I was typing the edit to my original post.
The edit above lists the reasons why I am sufficiently underwhelmed to unapologetically steadfastly stick by my position that your argument's sanctimony was/is scurrilously inaccurate.

Furthermore your deliberate efforts to confuse those seeking a competing website to IIP by construction of/boasting and braying about PMF.com substantiates just why your latest explanatory 'argument' about distinguishing URLs for IIP underwhelms me.
Click to expand...


You made the claim that Injustice in Perugia was hiding information from the public. When proven wrong you responded with nonsense about world splitting. The facts are simple, everything is available at injusticeinperugia.org. You were wrong.

On another often repeated baseless claim, feel free to show me any examples of where I have libeled anyone. I am still waiting for proof on that. Any attempt to prove me wrong will simply further expose the hateful behavior of your friends. Give it a try, see what you can come up with.

As far as pmf.com goes, there were multiple PMF's to go around, why should I miss out on the fun? I find the PMF civil war quite humorous.
 
Who says anything about [B]"world splitting"[/B]

Bruce Fisher said:
You made the claim that Injustice in Perugia was hiding information from the public. When proven wrong you responded with nonsense about world splitting

. ...... off topic snip.......

As far as pmf.com goes, there were multiple PMF's to go around, why should I miss out on the fun? I find the PMF civil war quite humorous.
Click to expand...

Oh Dear

"world" splitting ???:eek:

Can someone here really use that skill when they argue innocence ??

One innocence poster here repeatedly argues conclusions that he could only obtain through supernatural abilities at mind readingto argue innocence.

But now world splitting too ??

Who and where said that ????

Surely your argument is confused:
1) I would have never imagined much less argued that any mere mortal, even here, could, "split worlds" to argue innocence.
2) I was definitely not "proven wrong"

Do you have a *straightforward* link showing where I ever said that per haps ???


Mama mia;
Adios
 
Last edited:
benno said:
Any thoughts on the co-inmates testimony? The brother of an inmate?
Click to expand...


Hi benno - welcome.

My view on the inmates' testimony has remained unchanged before, during and after it was heard in court. And I understand that it's the same view as held by Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams. The whole point underpinning the inmates' testimony is this: it was never about actively believing that either of the inmate groups' story was accurate or true - it was always about being able to determine whether or not either story was true in a court of law (using all the powers of the courts to seek the truth of the matter).

Many of those who are pro-guilt in this case would like to believe that the defence teams actually really believed one (or even both!) of these inmate stories. But that was simply never the case. The defence teams' argument was that the stories needed to be investigated in case they were true. The defence teams argued (correctly) that Massei's court had been derelict in its duty when it dismissed the inmate stories out of hand without even bothering to look any further into them. The defence teams' argument was that this was contrary to Italian justice procedures, and they therefore asked Hellmann's court to do the right thing and investigate the stories.

My personal belief is that neither of the two stories has any truth to them (and that has pretty much always been my belief) - but that's to completely miss the point of why the inmates were brought to court. The point is that if one of the stories had been investigated under judicial powers and had been found to be provably accurate, it would have had huge implications on the case. And that possibility alone (however small - provided it wasn't totally negligible) meant that the stories needed to be investigated and tested. The apparent fact that neither story stands up under proper scrutiny doesn't mean it wasn't worth finding that information out properly.

And for the defence, there's a small additional reason for bringing these inmates to court - even though it's not the reason why it happened: it helps to show that the police/prosecutors/courts might not have investigated the murder sufficiently widely/thoroughly up until this year.
 
pilot padron said:
Oh Dear

"world" splitting ???:eek:

Can someone here really use that skill when they argue innocence ??

One innocence poster here repeatedly argues conclusions that he could only obtain through supernatural abilities at mind readingto argue innocence.

But now world splitting too ??

Who and where said that ????

Surely your argument is confused:
1) I would have never imagined much less argued that any mere mortal, even here, could, "split worlds" to argue innocence.
2) I was definitely not "proven wrong"

Do you have a *straightforward* link showing where I ever said that per haps ???


Mama mia;
Adios
Click to expand...

Give me a break. You went into a fit of cyber hot flashes because Bruce's website makes your register before seeing certain pics (which later turned out to not even be true). Now you want us all to think that a claim of "word splitting" is petty.

Adios is right. Don't discuss the case or anything. Just the weird crush you have on Bruce Fisher.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Give me a break. You went into a fit of cyber hot flashes because Bruce's website makes your register before seeing certain pics (which later turned out to not even be true). Now you want us all to think that a claim of "word splitting" is petty.

Adios is right. Don't discuss the case or anything. Just the weird crush you have on Bruce Fisher.
Click to expand...


Oh no, it's worse even than that. Good ol' pilot has actually based his entire "satire" on a one-letter spelling mistake in Bruce's post ("world" instead of "word"). It's pathetic.
 
HumanityBlues said:
<snip>Adios is right. Don't discuss the case or anything. Just the weird crush you have on Bruce Fisher.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should post photos of Bruce on their board, the way Peter Quennell has photos of Meredith on his. Skeptical Bystander does have an avatar that reads, "Bruce Fisher, when will I see you?" If you magnify it a hundred times, I think you'll find that the letters are made up of little hearts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom