Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
christianahannah said:
I do not know if Rudy used the term in the skype conversation, however, he used a similar term/phrase which he wrote in his diary (the diary being written in his native language) and I am not certain it translates exactly to the British phrase).
Click to expand...

The meaning is the same.
 
snook1 said:
It's such a pleasure, LondonJohn, to see you deconstruct every single pro guilt post. For the past few days I see you writing excellent posts in response to bucket's rather weird, yet so usual for PMFers, ones. Great job.
Click to expand...


I thought I'd just reassure everyone that snook1 is not me posting under a sockpuppet alternative login :D

And thanks for your comment - but I'm not worthy of taking any more than a very small part of the credit. There are many others posting here who contribute a lot more than I do (and usually far more succinctly and concisely :)) to arguing/defending the case for acquittal. They are too numerous to name, but it should be obvious who they are. I think the one thing that ties us together is that we have looked at this case without placing the cart before the horse. We've taken the time and effort to look at things objectively, dispassionately and rationally, and have utilised accumulated knowledge/expertise and conscientious research to further our understanding.
 
bucketoftea said:
They implicated him as a "stranger". That's hard to understand?
Click to expand...

It's incomprehensible.

If Guede had any real story to tell, in which it is not him that dealt the death stab, he would do so long ago. Why is he sticking to the same nonsense and lying to this day? Why doesn't he tell all the truth, getting a sentence reduction, if it was really Amanda who did the stabbing with the kitchen knife?

It's not like Guede is not convicted already with the murder and the sexual assault? They could have dropped the murder charge in exchange for the "real story".

Isn't it that not only there's no other truth apart from Guede being the bulglar, the killer and the rapist, in fact there is no way to come up with any alternative sensible story.
 
Last edited:
bucketoftea said:
What???? Not allowed?? That doesn't make any sense.
I wouldn't expect them to release him only on a liar's say-so without thorough investigation, and that is what happened.

Lumumba would not have been arrested but for Amanda's false, wild accusation.
Click to expand...

So the confused and vague say-so by a lair was good enough to get him thrown in jail without an investigation, but not a clear statment wasn't enough to get him out again, or even have his alibi checked up on?
 
LondonJohn said:
We've taken the time and effort to look at things objectively, dispassionately and rationally, and have utilised accumulated knowledge/expertise and conscientious research to further our understanding.
Click to expand...


Yes indeed, you and a lot of other posters have done exactly what you describe because they are interested and taken with the case.

I have stated that I have not.

The reason for me not doing that is because I do not have the time or interest in these activities.

I understand that courts sometimes get to the wrong conclusion, but do not believe that any amount of understanding on my part will make any difference to the proceedings.
 
Skwinty said:
LondonJohn,

The irrelevancy to the outcome stands.

The debate can continue till the cows come home with no effect on the courts judgement.

My concern with the argument is as follows.

3 people were found guilty and convicted.

1 person appealed and had a reduction of sentence.

2 people filed appeals and those appeals are ongoing.

The DNA evidence was found by experts to be not reliable.

The court still needs to make a judgement on that.

How that will affect the other evidence remains to be seen.

If they are acquitted, then good for them.

If they are found guilty, then not so good for them.

I will respect the courts decision either way, but will you and the rest of the people arguing for acquittal?

Or, should the verdict be guilty, will this debate escalate into the next dimension of how wrong the courts were?
Click to expand...


Ah! Argument from authority! An eminently sceptical position!

You appear to be saying that it's pointless to have any sort of debate about this case, for the following reason: If the courts in Perugia ultimately convict Knox/Sollecito, then they will by definition be factually culpable of the murder; conversely, if the courts ultimately acquit Knox/Sollecito, it will also be for the right reasons. So we should let the courts decide, and to conduct any online debate about it is pointless and meaningless.

And if that's your position, that's perfectly OK (even though in my opinion it's irrational and indefensible). But if it is, then it beats me why you're visiting these threads, far less posting on them. As I've said a number of times already, you can apply essentially the same argument to every single issue being discussed/debated on JREF. For example, the recent Norway spree killing incident will be examined by the Norwegian courts, so is any discussion of the incident on JREF in any way worthwhile (by your criteria for what constitutes "worthwhile")?

And again, I'd ask - with the above paragraph in mind - have you visited some (or all) of the other threads on the JREF forum (particularly those that deal with social issues and current events), to point out to them that their discussions are meaningless and irrelevant? Have you done so? "Yes" or "no" would be fine, but if it's a "yes", I'd be interested to know in which threads you've also offered this opinion.
 
LondonJohn said:
I thought I'd just reassure everyone that snook1 is not me posting under a sockpuppet alternative login :D

And thanks for your comment - but I'm not worthy of taking any more than a very small part of the credit. There are many others posting here who contribute a lot more than I do (and usually far more succinctly and concisely :)) to arguing/defending the case for acquittal. They are too numerous to name, but it should be obvious who they are. I think the one thing that ties us together is that we have looked at this case without placing the cart before the horse. We've taken the time and effort to look at things objectively, dispassionately and rationally, and have utilised accumulated knowledge/expertise and conscientious research to further our understanding.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is confusion as to Rose's gender back at PMF, so I guess, they could very fast come to the conclusion that snook1 is indeed just a sockpuppet alternative login.

Hate to disappoint, but no, I'm just a follower of this case with, actually pretty decent knowledge, but nowhere near to LondonJohn's, Rose's, Katody's, katy's, Kaosium's, Phantom Wolf's, RWVBWL's, RandyN'sand many many others, that contribute to this debate. As LondonJohn said, there are way too many people to be named, so if I forgot someone important, please forgive me.

Keep up the good work, people!
 
Skwinty said:
Yes indeed, you and a lot of other posters have done exactly what you describe because they are interested and taken with the case.

I have stated that I have not.

The reason for me not doing that is because I do not have the time or interest in these activities.

I understand that courts sometimes get to the wrong conclusion, but do not believe that any amount of understanding on my part will make any difference to the proceedings.
Click to expand...


Why does it have to "make a difference to the proceedings" to have any validity? Why do you think that this, in and of itself, is reason enough not to delve into this case? On what subjects/topics have you made your 3,800 posts on these forums? Did any of those posts "make a difference to proceedings"? I suspect not, in which case you're accusing yourself of wasting your own time and energy :D
 
bucketoftea said:
The confrontation between the women was the trigger. Rudy is not the only source.
Click to expand...


What's another source of evidence of a confrontation between Meredith and Amanda prior to the murder that was intense enough for Meredith to call Amanda a "drugged-up tart" (or equivalent). I'd be very interested to know. Thanks.
 
Skwinty said:
LondonJohn,

The irrelevancy to the outcome stands. (I don't agree with you or LJ on this one. Of course LJ went on to explain his qualification in greater detail than what you have restated)

The debate can continue till the cows come home with no effect on the courts judgement. (I am not so sure the court is not influenced by the media, at least to some degree. In fact, it was argued from the guilty position that the anti-Italian comments about that system of justice could have a negative impact on the court's judgment and backfire on those on the side of innocence.)

My concern with the argument is as follows. (I see some "facts" but not many "concerns"?)

3 people were found guilty and convicted. (Only partially correct. Only one has been found guilty under the Italian system, the other two are still considered innocent even if they were "found guilty" by the first court.

1 person appealed and had a reduction of sentence. (The same reduction (in terms of years) that Amanda and Raffaele got in the first trial-the rest of the reduction is due to the fast track nature of the trial that Rudy selected)

2 people filed appeals and those appeals are ongoing. (All three filed appeals.)

The DNA evidence was found by experts to be not reliable. (Some of the DNA evidence was found to be not reliable.)

The court still needs to make a judgement on that. (It looks ominous for the prosecution.)

How that will affect the other evidence remains to be seen. (I can guess.)

If they are acquitted, then good for them. (Keep that in mind.)

If they are found guilty, then not so good for them. (Sorry, missed that one.)

I will respect the courts decision either way, but will you and the rest of the people arguing for acquittal? (I don't respect the first courts judgment because it was biased and the logic flawed. I am hoping that this judgment will be impartial and logical.)

Or, should the verdict be guilty, will this debate escalate into the next dimension of how wrong the courts were?(At least through the SC review and probably beyond.)
Click to expand...

My comments in red.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Lastly, I suggested that forum members should ignore the Knox threads if they are either uninterested in the topic or dislike some of those posting on the topic. I suggested that it's totally irrational to complain about the presence (or number) of the threads, when the remedy is perfectly clear. My personal opinion is that many long-time JREFers are noticing the high popularity, high volume and high visibility of these threads - particularly the main discussion thread - and having feelings of jealousy, exclusion and being usurped. And I think I'm probably correct.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as quite insightful - I thought the responses to the Knox threads from certain quarters were anomalous, but I didn't have an explanation as to why. However it makes sense if there is a group of people who come here for the feeling of being part of a skeptical social group who are cooler than non-skeptical people, that such a group would be threatened by a group of newcomers who come and set up shop to discuss something interesting which is way over their heads and by so doing create one of the largest and most-viewed threads on the forum.

It would make it even worse if the newcomers were progressively proven to have been right on every major point, and to have been right long before the defence case was successfully made in court on exactly the same grounds they had been banging on about for a year or more.

I will say that on a reread of the first page, Skeptic_Ginger was remarkably prescient:

Skeptic Ginger said:
The reason I bring this up here is this trial was based on a criminal (as in he's a criminal) prosecutor and involved cultural face saving rather evidence of guilt. I heard an interview of a reporter who understood the issues and he said they would find her guilty despite the fact there is no evidence, because once the prosecutor stuck his neck out he had to continue to "save face". Apparently she might get out in ~2 years when the appeals court overturns the conviction.

I'll look for some more links with the rest of the story.

The cartwheel BTW, for those of you not familiar with the case, was what Knox did in the police station when she was being questioned. That made the police think she was too casual and made her guilty.
Click to expand...

She said that back in December 2009, and Knox and Sollecito might well be out by December 2011. She was pretty much spot on. Kudos!
 
Skwinty said:
Yes indeed, you and a lot of other posters have done exactly what you describe because they are interested and taken with the case.

I have stated that I have not.

The reason for me not doing that is because I do not have the time or interest in these activities.
Click to expand...


Why are you bothering to post in this thread, then?

I can think of two reasons for posting here - either that one is interested in the topic and wants to gain information about it, or that one has already decided on a point of view on the basis of the evidence and wishes to present that case.

You are doing neither. You are sniping at people who are informed, from an uninformed position, and contributing nothing of your own. You are wasting both your time and the time of other people.

Why?

Rolfe.
 
Skwinty said:
another "cool" and "witty" response.

I am starting to see a pattern here.
Click to expand...


Nope, it was a statement of fact, albeit one couched in mild sarcasm.

And it's interesting that you chose not to address the questions I've asked. Very interesting.
 
Rolfe said:
Why are you bothering to post in this thread, then?

I can think of two reasons for posting here - either that one is interested in the topic and wants to gain information about it, or that one has already decided on a point of view on the basis of the evidence and wishes to present that case.

You are doing neither. You are sniping at people who are informed, from an uninformed position, and contributing nothing of your own. You are wasting both your time and the time of other people.

Why?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


I have also essentially made the same point and asked the same question. So far, there's been no answer. But I still remain hopeful that an answer will be forthcoming, and that it will be well-reasoned and logical :)
 
Question:

In which bathroom were the famous Guede feces found?

In which bathroom was the famous Guede/Raffaele luminol footprint found?

Did the other bathroom have any 'evidence'?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom