Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it comes down to insufficient evidence. Or innocent. Therein lies the rub;

The jury in Casy Anthony's case said the prosecution did not provide enoght evidence.

Common sense said guilty/

Same thing with OJ.

It comes down to the mind set, I believe. Perhaps how we would behave. Subjective, I think/

I for one, would never, ever think of accusing an innocent person. Some would say, yes, I would.

Aren't we human's wonderful? In our differnces? Makes the World interesting, that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
Please forgive spelling, I just type.Guilty, I;m sure of not proofing.

Or, using spell check. In real life, I'm very responsible :)
 
Last edited:
BTW. Just as a pop quiz.

How many of you would ACCUSE YOUR FRIEND/ employer AS A MURDERER?

Under what circumstances? If overwhelmingly say yes..I would ask why?

let's say, umm, research?
 
Grinder said:
From the DailyMail today:

Stephanie said: 'In this whole case over the last four years Meredith has been completely forgotten but we need to find justice for her, the truth.

This must be devastating for two web sites.
Click to expand...

On Steve Shay's new article in the West Seattle Herald, a commenter posted the opinion that "Mignini & Marcesa keep [Meredith] out of the limelight." Interesting thought, if true.
 
capealadin said:
BTW. Just as a pop quiz.

How many of you would ACCUSE YOUR FRIEND/ employer AS A MURDERER?

Under what circumstances? If overwhelmingly say yes..I would ask why?

let's say, umm, research?
Click to expand...

Christopher Ochoa did it because he was a scared kid, and he wanted the cops to stop yelling at him.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Christopher Ochoa did it because he was a scared kid, and he wanted the cops to stop yelling at him.
Click to expand...

Ummm Charlie. Stay with the [rogram. This Is the AMANDA KNOX thread.

Christopher belongs in another thread, I'll debate that case with you, when I have the facts wherein.
 
bolint said:
Patience. Defence's closing argument is due Tuesday. :)
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly predictable what's going to happen tomorrow. The prosecutors get to speak, they may throw in a surprise or whatever-----not that it will matter. But guilters will get reinvigorated by prosecution friendly headlines that are only that way because it's their turn to speak, not because things are going their way. And tomorrow will probably seem like a victorious day for the prosecution by default. This is pretty much what happens every time each side gets a chance to present something.

I actually don't put you in that category personally. You're one of the smarter ones. I think you pretty well know how this appeal is going to turn out.
 
capealadin said:
I think it comes down to insufficient evidence. Or innocent. Therein lies the rub;

The jury in Casy Anthony's case said the prosecution did not provide enoght evidence.

Common sense said guilty/

Same thing with OJ.

It comes down to the mind set, I believe. Perhaps how we would behave. Subjective, I think/

I for one, would never, ever think of accusing an innocent person. Some would say, yes, I would.
Click to expand...

There are all sorts of interesting scientific experiments, like the Milgram experiment, which show that how we think we will act and how we will actually act often differ wildly.

I doubt very much that anyone thinks they will fall victim to an internalised false statement. I doubt very much the Norfolk Four thought that they would crack and accuse innocent men of a brutal rape and murder.

Yet placed under pressure, told by authorities you trust that your own memories are unreliable and that they have absolute proof to back up their claims, the fact is many people will indeed crack and come to believe what the police tell them.

capealadin said:
BTW. Just as a pop quiz.

How many of you would ACCUSE YOUR FRIEND/ employer AS A MURDERER?

Under what circumstances? If overwhelmingly say yes..I would ask why?

let's say, umm, research?
Click to expand...

If I wasn't aware of how false confessions and false memories come about, I think I'd be as vulnerable as the next person.

Since I am, hopefully I'd be aware of what was happening and be able to stick with the truth as I knew it. Who knows though? I've never been put in that position.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Edit: I'm sorry, I don't mean to harp. I really don't, but just look at quotes like this. "In effect what Judge Hellman’s court will issue is a provisional finding, and Sollecito and Knox may not know their final verdict and sentence for a year and a half." Good lord someone get this man some valium to put him to sleep for a few months. I gotta ask, do you guilters seriously take this guy seriously? Are you still behind him?
Click to expand...

The question I ask is -- does it make someone feel good to speculate about two people not knowing what will happen to their lives for a year and a half? Even if I thought the evidence showed they are guilty, that kind of thought would not occur to me.
 
pilot padron said:
RW, I agree with your introductory remarks that are well reasoned and timely.

A coupla' "facts " of the case that I doubt will change anyone's opinion, but nonetheless:

1) Knox in her own words described her religious convictions as Agnostic.
Therefore, I submit that the Jesuit influence, the Commandments and Knox's personal adherence to them is not at all a factor in proving innocence.
Despite the fact that you place such emphasis on them, I believe these religious factors may have had no more effect on her committing murder than it had on her frequent fornicating.
Click to expand...

Is that the eleventh commandment -- "Thou shalt not frequently fornicate?" :D

It's not like once a young person decides to give being agnostic a try, all their prior learning flies out the window. She's agnostic, not amoral. I feel confident that before Amanda entered high school, her parents had already exposed her to Christianity as well as to the spiritual and humanistic values promoted in the New Testament.

I agree with you to a certain extent that "Knox's personal adherence to [The Ten Commandments] is not at all a factor in proving innocence." Even human beings without any religious training at all usually abstain from murder.
 
capealadin said:
Mary, who is * The Commentor*...........His input is valued because because?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

I was interested in the comment, not the commenter. Since you asked, though, the name is "bluemoon." I don't know who it is or anything else about them. I did not agree with this person's entire post -- they described Meredith's sex life in a way I do not think can be substantiated. I posted the other part of the comment here for further consideration.
 
HumanityBlues said:
I think you pretty well know how this appeal is going to turn out.
Click to expand...

Then you overestimate me.
I don't know what the outcome will be. It depends on how Hellmann and in a lesser degree the other judges see it, which I don't know.
Compared to the first degree trial the prosecution's case has been certainly weakened. But that's natural in almost every appeal.
 
bolint said:
Then you overestimate me.
I don't know what the outcome will be. It depends on how Hellmann and in a lesser degree the other judges see it, which I don't know.
Compared to the first degree trial the prosecution's case has been certainly weakened. But that's natural in almost every appeal.
Click to expand...

Is it? Are you talking about an American appeal where matters of law are usually the issue and not the findings of fact by the first trial?

Or are you talking about the Italian system where the appeals trial almost constitutes a new trial? And if you are talking about an Italian appeal could you give us some feel about other trials that you based your conclusion on? And how does the weakening of the prosecutor's case in this trial compare with the other cases your comment was based on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom