Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
cuki777 said:
Amy

That's where we differ. I would have said, 'I'm not sure, it's not my room.' Some women have small items of expensive jewellery. Some people keep cash in a drawer.
Click to expand...

Why do you think did Raffaele say that nothing was stolen, if he was involved? I can't see how you can infer his involvement from it logically.
 
lionking said:
Police, prosecutors and forensic scientists, not just police. All liars according to some.
Click to expand...

Um ... people here have listed the lies told by all 3 of these groups of people. Unlike Amanda and Raffaele's alleged "lies", the police/prosecution lies have been exposed by independently verifiable facts.
Nope, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Yet you "buy" the prosecution story of the crime, with all of the implausible elements needed to support it. Why so?
 
ToD????

lionking said:
The Chamberlain case is 25 or so years ago, and there were sloppy forensic practices, but not the conspiracy required in this case.
Click to expand...
-

lionking,

there's no real "full blown" conspiracy here either. at least not in my opinion. Just ordinary people (with the color of authority and when you add into that mix the insane slander laws and what you end up with is people) doing sloppy and incomplete work believing (or possibly pretending to believe or at least that's what they tell themselves) that they were doing the right thing. Although Steffi might be another matter all together.

By the way, my ToD question please. Thank you,

Dave

-
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
Um ... people here have listed the lies told by all 3 of these groups of people. Unlike Amanda and Raffaele's alleged "lies", the police/prosecution lies have been exposed by independently verifiable facts.
Click to expand...

Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
 
lionking said:
The Chamberlain case is 25 or so years ago, and there were sloppy forensic practices, but not the conspiracy required in this case.
Click to expand...
Sloppy forensics and sloppy experts, just like in this case. Why is the 25 years important? What changed?
 
-

cuki777,

I'd give you +1 for at least answering questions, but lionking? (S)he has avoided answering real legitimate questions (except one where (s)he gets to push his/ her agenda about "grand conspiracies") and would rather comment about "perceived" snarkiness and incivility instead.

Sorry, but to me that is a -1 in my book,

Dave

-
 
lionking said:
Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
Click to expand...

We'll see, that's right, but it's game over already. The two are going home, Mignini is removed from office for unrelated crimes and Steffi probably gets some reprimand for her sloppy forensics. Perugian heroes keep their medals.
 
I don't buy this concept of the investigators and prosecutors all knowing perfectly well that they're framing a couple of innocent kids but deciding to do it anyway. That's simplistic and naive. It really never happens like that.

In any investigation there is an evidence-gathering phase, which should be neutral, with a theory-forming stage only occurring when sufficient evidence has been collected to allow informed speculation. Once a coherent theory has been constructed, then further investigation may be aimed at confirming the theory.

The two things that go wrong in police investigations, with depressing regularity, are that the theorising happens far too early, before enough evidence has been accumulated to allow this to be properly informed, and that further investigation aimed at confirming a theory becomes closed-minded and incapable of interpreting anything except as it supports the chosen theory.

This seems to have happened in this case, in spades. The theory that Knox and Sollecito were involved preceded the evidence-gathering by a ridiculous margin. The police went public with this theory far far too early. And the rest is just backside-covering and face-saving.

This is such a reasonable explanation of what has been going on, and at the same time the actual evidence is so questionable, that it seems to me completely ridiculous just to sit there saying, oh but that would have been a conspiracy and I don't believe in conspiracies.

If the time of death evidence means that the prosecution theory is absolutely untenable, then something has to be reconsidered. Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I don't think there was a wildly improbable conspiracy at all. But even if there was, then set aside the impossibility of the time of death being 11.40pm, then it has to be accepted.

Rolfe.
 
ToD?????

lionking said:
Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
Click to expand...
-

lionking,

interesting that you can be so sure about "grand conspiracies", but nothing else. Some people would see that as hypocritical, but I choose not to think that, but rather to think that you (for some reason) choose not to use your critical thinking skills to evaluate your own beliefs. Possibly because then you would have to admit you are wrong? Not saying that's whats going on but who knows for sure except you.

By the way, ToD, Rudy and the Skype call? What was your answer again? Thank you in advance,

Dave

-
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
Click to expand...

Again, your position always comes back to the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

We've had this discussion before: if the actual evidence means nothing to you, and all that matters is the opinion of a judge, then why do you even take part in this discussion?
 
Rolfe, despite everything posted here, the time of death is contested, and analysis of stomach contents is not accepted by all as definitive.
 
lionking said:
Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
Click to expand...

A lot of the "lies" that appear to be leaked to the press were not used in court but rather in the court of public opinion. The biggest ones used in court (I count preliminary hearings as in court as well) are; no other testing on the Luminol stains, the amount on DNA reported by Ms Steffi on the knife blade, and the police arrival before RS called the cops. I would describe Comodi's timing of the Amanda call to her Mom as misleading rather than an outright lie.
 
Antony said:
Again, your position always comes back to the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

We've had this discussion before: if the actual evidence means nothing to you, and all that matters is the opinion of a judge, then why do you even take part in this discussion?
Click to expand...

A pretty decent authority. But nonetheless, I don't dance to your tune.
 
lionking said:
Rolfe, despite everything posted here, the time of death is contested, and analysis of stomach contents is not accepted by all as definitive.
Click to expand...

I don't consider it to be absolute proof either. However, the TOD theory put forward by the defense is much more persuasive than the one put forward by the prosecution, imo. I don't see how the reasonable doubt issue can be avoided on TOD.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Rolfe, despite everything posted here, the time of death is contested, and analysis of stomach contents is not accepted by all as definitive.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah, you can say that the time of the sunrise is "contested" as well, but that doesn't make it doubtful.

If you dispute the evidence relating to time of death, why won't you have the discussion? Several people here are very willing to go over it again and explain how there really is no reasonable doubt that Meredith was dead well before ten, and was probably killed soon after she arrived home.

Just sitting there declaring it's "contested" doesn't butter any parsnips on a sceptics forum.

Rolfe.
 
so true...

Rolfe said:
I don't buy this concept of the investigators and prosecutors all knowing perfectly well that they're framing a couple of innocent kids but deciding to do it anyway. That's simplistic and naive. It really never happens like that.

In any investigation there is an evidence-gathering phase, which should be neutral, with a theory-forming stage only occurring when sufficient evidence has been collected to allow informed speculation. Once a coherent theory has been constructed, then further investigation may be aimed at confirming the theory.

The two things that go wrong in police investigations, with depressing regularity, are that the theorising happens far too early, before enough evidence has been accumulated to allow this to be properly informed, and that further investigation aimed at confirming a theory becomes closed-minded and incapable of interpreting anything except as it supports the chosen theory.

This seems to have happened in this case, in spades. The theory that Knox and Sollecito were involved preceded the evidence-gathering by a ridiculous margin. The police went public with this theory far far too early. And the rest is just backside-covering and face-saving.

This is such a reasonable explanation of what has been going on, and at the same time the actual evidence is so questionable, that it seems to me completely ridiculous just to sit there saying, oh but that would have been a conspiracy and I don't believe in conspiracies.

If the time of death evidence means that the prosecution theory is absolutely untenable, then something has to be reconsidered. Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I don't think there was a wildly improbable conspiracy at all. But even if there was, then set aside the impossibility of the time of death being 11.40pm, then it has to be accepted.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
-

Rolfe,

and don't forget the slander laws (and especially the way they've been used in this case) which really don't inspire me to believe anyone would come forward to say anything and risk being slapped with that headache...

IF there really is this holy "grand conspiracy" lionking keeps pretending can't ever happen anywhere,

Dave

P.S. what about whistleblower protection laws in Italy? Do they exist?

-
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Well, yeah, you can say that the time of the sunrise is "contested" as well, but that doesn't make it doubtful.

If you dispute the evidence relating to time of death, why won't you have the discussion? Several people here are very willing to go over it again and explain how there really is no reasonable doubt that Meredith was dead well before ten, and was probably killed soon after she arrived home.

Just sitting there declaring it's "contested" doesn't butter any parsnips on a sceptics forum.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Like everything else in this thread, this has been covered before, with links explaining why stomach content evidence is not definitive. Excuse me, I can't really be bothered searching for it.
 
lionking said:
Like everything else in this thread, this has been covered before, with links explaining why stomach content evidence is not definitive. Excuse me, I can't really be bothered searching for it.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but the stomach and duidenum contents evidence (in combination) is definitive. The fact that you can find links to people who clearly don't understand the evidence saying otherwise doesn't change that.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom