Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
Do you seriously think this thread has a monopoly on "zealous certainty"?




Most recent post at PMF.org.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Hehehe. They still can't figure out that if Hellmann's court has indeed "decided already", then they can only have decided one way. And here's a clue: they haven't decided for guilt. There's no possible way they could have decided on guilt before half the defence argument has even been heard. The only possible decision they can logically have reached at this point (if they have indeed reached such a decision already) is for acquittal: they have now heard all the arguments for guilt, so it's perfectly proper and rational for them to already have concluded that there is insufficient proof of guilt.
 
Popper may have figured it out....

Rolfe.

ETA: Actually no, I think I was giving him too much credit.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Nothing wrong with making a prediction. The poll is that a' way----->
Click to expand...

I voted that they will be acquitted just as I did in the first trial. I was shocked and dismayed at that outcome and it makes me nervous to say with certainty that they will be acquitted this time. A logical outcome would be acquittal, but I haven't seen an abundance of logic from Perugian officials so far. I have seen a ton of face saving effort from the brotherhood in Perugia. I sincerely hope logic wins the day this time.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hehehe. They still can't figure out that if Hellmann's court has indeed "decided already", then they can only have decided one way. And here's a clue: they haven't decided for guilt. There's no possible way they could have decided on guilt before half the defence argument has even been heard. The only possible decision they can logically have reached at this point (if they have indeed reached such a decision already) is for acquittal: they have now heard all the arguments for guilt, so it's perfectly proper and rational for them to already have concluded that there is insufficient proof of guilt.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in their position... they think they are rational, and they have already decided on guilt, so why should they not think that Hellmann has also already decided on guilt?

It all makes sense once you assume they are rational, which demonstrates the general principle that from a false premise you can reason yourself to all sorts of false conclusions.
 
morsels
My #InsideSource says the judge wants to push the verdict along & that we're going to see the end of the #AmandaKnox trial Saturday night.

Tweet from Stephen Robert Morse. Sounds right.
 
Poppy1016 said:
I voted that they will be acquitted just as I did in the first trial. I was shocked and dismayed at that outcome and it makes me nervous to say with certainty that they will be acquitted this time. A logical outcome would be acquittal, but I haven't seen an abundance of logic from Perugian officials so far. I have seen a ton of face saving effort from the brotherhood in Perugia. I sincerely hope logic wins the day this time.
Click to expand...


That is very true. Thats why its a good thing Hellmann is from no where even close to Perugia.
 
I see Ganong has just upped the ante on the cost of the "PR Supertanker" to $2 million! If ever anyone needed a demonstration of just how detached from reality and common sense this woman is, this is a pretty good example. I strongly suspect that the entirety of PR/Communications activities carried out for Knox's family (the vast majority of which involve nothing more than handling media requests and scheduling interviews) barely ran into five figures.

Just consider things in the logical way: the Knox/Mellas family has a very limited pot of funds to work with - even if they are hoping for remuneration via interview payments with Knox post-acquittal. Now, the question then becomes this: where are these limited funds best employed, in order to maximise the chances of the optimum result? The optimum result here is twofold: to get Knox (and Sollecito) acquitted - by far the main objective, and to rehabilitate her in the eyes of the US public - a minor but still significant objective.

So with that in mind, how should Knox's family best spend their money? The only reasonable suggestion is that the vast majority of available funds should go towards providing direct legal assistance (and expert witness consultancy) to Knox and Sollecito for the first trial and then the appeal trial. And the remainder should go towards providing family support in Italy. It's obvious to see that this use of funds is the best way of maximising chances of success in the Italian courts, and therefore of achieving the primary objective of acquittal.

By contrast, throwing large sums of money at some sort of PR campaign - especially one aimed primarily at US audiences - would have been a relative waste of funds. After all, if the first objective (acquittal) is achieved, Knox will not only be able to get all the free favourable publicity she wants, but more than that, she'll actually be paid to get favourable publicity!

The only rational conclusion to draw is that Knox's family spent the overwhelming majority of funds (whether actual moneys or "IOUs" repayable on post-acquittal interviews) on legal assistance, expert witness assistance and family travel/subsistence in Perugia. I can be virtually certain that there has been no significant spend on a PR campaign. And I can be categorically certain that there has been no $1m, let alone $2m spend on such a PR campaign. Ridiculous.
 
Draca said:
morsels
My #InsideSource says the judge wants to push the verdict along & that we're going to see the end of the #AmandaKnox trial Saturday night.

Tweet from Stephen Robert Morse. Sounds right.
Click to expand...


Yes. And it only supports one possible verdict: acquittal.
 
LondonJohn said:
I see Ganong has just upped the ante on the cost of the "PR Supertanker" to $2 million! If ever anyone needed a demonstration of just how detached from reality and common sense this woman is, this is a pretty good example. I strongly suspect that the entirety of PR/Communications activities carried out for Knox's family (the vast majority of which involve nothing more than handling media requests and scheduling interviews) barely ran into five figures.

Just consider things in the logical way: the Knox/Mellas family has a very limited pot of funds to work with - even if they are hoping for remuneration via interview payments with Knox post-acquittal. Now, the question then becomes this: where are these limited funds best employed, in order to maximise the chances of the optimum result? The optimum result here is twofold: to get Knox (and Sollecito) acquitted - by far the main objective, and to rehabilitate her in the eyes of the US public - a minor but still significant objective.

So with that in mind, how should Knox's family best spend their money? The only reasonable suggestion is that the vast majority of available funds should go towards providing direct legal assistance (and expert witness consultancy) to Knox and Sollecito for the first trial and then the appeal trial. And the remainder should go towards providing family support in Italy. It's obvious to see that this use of funds is the best way of maximising chances of success in the Italian courts, and therefore of achieving the primary objective of acquittal.

By contrast, throwing large sums of money at some sort of PR campaign - especially one aimed primarily at US audiences - would have been a relative waste of funds. After all, if the first objective (acquittal) is achieved, Knox will not only be able to get all the free favourable publicity she wants, but more than that, she'll actually be paid to get favourable publicity!

The only rational conclusion to draw is that Knox's family spent the overwhelming majority of funds (whether actual moneys or "IOUs" repayable on post-acquittal interviews) on legal assistance, expert witness assistance and family travel/subsistence in Perugia. I can be virtually certain that there has been no significant spend on a PR campaign. And I can be categorically certain that there has been no $1m, let alone $2m spend on such a PR campaign. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Logic is a powerful thing.
 
just wondering

LondonJohn said:
Yes. And it only supports one possible verdict: acquittal.
Click to expand...

Is there a point where one watches you argue this absolute certainty of acquittal so exaggeratedly over and over and over again ....

That one might just wonder maybe you are just trying to convince yourself of something that, at this point, no mortal being could ever possibly know 'with absolute certainty'
 
Dougm said:
Indeed. Logic is a powerful thing.
Click to expand...

No doubt. How about the logic in this comment from dott org

The Kercher family have been concerned that Meredith has become the forgotten victim. Isn't it appalling that the heartless, money grabbing, publicity seeking entourage have forced Maresca into showing the photos of Meredith lying with her throat ripped apart just to remind the jury who the victim is here ? Isn't it ?
Click to expand...
 
My sources tell me that the PR campaign is now to $1 billion.

I dare anyone to prove that is not true.
 
LondonJohn said:
And how about those Bills on Sunday?!!!!! (The Bills are my adopted team since I saw them play an exhibition against the Eagles at Wembley Stadium 20-odd years ago, and I met Jim Kelly, Darryl Talley, Thurman Thomas and most of the Bills cheerleaders ;) )

But seriously, I'd make the following observation about Saturday (or whenever the verdict comes). Firstly, you should be very confident that the verdict will be acquittal. And secondly, I don't think that acquittal will be a cause for huge celebration. It should be a cause for reflection, satisfaction that justice has been properly applied, and a realisation that nobody has won out of the whole sorry mess. And I hope and suspect that even Knox, Sollecito and their families will not be in the mood for exuberant celebrations. I hope and suspect that their predominant emotion will be one of relief. And after that, due reflection should be paid to the sad fact that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered, and that her killer, Rudy Guede, has at least been caught and brought to justice.
Click to expand...

I worked in upstate NY when the Bruins won the cup. I saw a lot of dissappointed New Yorkers. I shouldn't expect a Boston team to win all the time, but they've all done well in recent years.

You seem to know people that are in the court in Perugia or understand Italian well enough to follow the proceedings live. You also have stated that you know Italian lawyers. Care to say anything more about your sources? Are you talking about Candace Dempsey, Bruce Fischer, Steve Moore, Mark Waterbury, or Ron Hendry? Are they in Italy?
 
I am trying to imagine the scene on Saturday night when the verdict of not guilty is brought in,Amanda being taken back to Capanne to be officially released,a mighty scrum of reporters and camera men waiting outside the prison,hoping to catch a glimpse to interview some of the people there to take her away to freedom

Pressmen asking Maresco if he still felt showing the post mortem photos of Meredith was the right thing to do,camera's pushed in Mignini's and Comodi's faces for reaction,analysis by sky news and all of the American networks as to why this miscarriage of justice took place,the kind of publicity that no tourist destination could ever want,the mayor of Perugia telling a newsman why it is still safe for families to send their daughters to study in his city even after Rudy gets out
 
LondonJohn said:
Hehehe. They still can't figure out that if Hellmann's court has indeed "decided already", then they can only have decided one way. And here's a clue: they haven't decided for guilt. There's no possible way they could have decided on guilt before half the defence argument has even been heard.
Click to expand...

Assuming an impartial attitude on the part of the judges and magistrates, this would indeed be the most likely conclusion. But it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that they reached a conclusion of guilt based on the written and oral testimony presented already, and that they have concluded that nothing the defense is likely to say in summation would be enough to change that. Accordingly, they figure on a rather quick deliberation. Presumably, should something in the summations tomorrow change that, they might adjust their schedule further out.

I agree that the notion that the panel has decided already is probably a good sign for the defense rather than the prosecution...but, then again, as the old song goes, "It Ain't Necessarily So."
 
RoseMontague said:
No doubt. How about the logic in this comment from dott org
Click to expand...


The Kercher family have been concerned that Meredith has become the forgotten victim. Isn't it appalling that the heartless, money grabbing, publicity seeking entourage have forced Maresca into showing the photos of Meredith lying with her throat ripped apart just to remind the jury who the victim is here ? Isn't it ?
Click to expand...

That's ummm....kinda funny actually. It should win some sort of award. Which one? Shameless spin scepter? Delusional duties derby? Projectionist palp podium?
 
pilot padron said:
Is there a point where one watches you argue this absolute certainty of acquittal so exaggeratedly over and over and over again ....

That one might just wonder maybe you are just trying to convince yourself of something that, at this point, no mortal being could ever possibly know 'with absolute certainty'
Click to expand...


Well, I have stated that in my view acquittals are inevitable. I haven't used the term "absolute certainty", and there's a difference. I believe that the Sun appearing above the south-eastern horizon over London tomorrow is inevitable, but one cannot accord an absolute certainty to it. However, yes, I am now prepared to stick my neck out and say that acquittals are inevitable: in my opinion there is no way whatsoever that either prosecutors or lawyers for civil plaintiffs have argued convincingly for guilt in Hellmann's court. And what's more, I think that Hellmann's indication of a Saturday verdict can only be interpreted as a preparation for acquittal. I'm certainly not saying this in order to convince myself of something - I think that only certain pro-guilt individuals engage in such self-deluding behaviour.

And why don't you ask your *ahem* "friend" stint7 to ask the likes of "The Machine" and many other pro-guilt commentators how and why they were so very certain only a couple of months ago that Knox and Sollecito would be found guilty in their appeals and convicted of the murders. I might be mistaken (I'm not mistaken), but I don't remember stint7 bringing up this level of certainty at the time on .org or .net. Can you imagine why stint7 might not have asked the same questions of pro-guilt commentators?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom