Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malkmus said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7296587#post7296587

How is HB wrong?

Oh, wait he isn't.
Click to expand...


Despite not agreeing with most of LionKing's posts, I actually have to point out that he/she is technically correct in this instance. Here is what HB wrote:

''You've already said here that C) it requires some sort of vast conspiracy by the police for Knox to be innocent.''

The word I have bolded ('innocent') should read 'guilty'

EDIT:
Forget the above!! I just read it back to myself and Malkmus was correct - not me!!
The above post by me is incorrect. Apologies!!

So now I haven't agreed with LionKing..... :o)
 
Last edited:
thank you...

Malkmus said:
While not proof of anything, I have to say this is an excellent point, and maybe the strongest indication of which way the ill wind is blowing.
Click to expand...
-

and you're right Malkmus,

it isn't proof of anything, but it's like that myth (which, by the way, is mostly not a myth) that you can tell how a jury decided by whether they look at a defendant or not as they file back into the room,

Dave

P.S. if they don't look at you, you're toast
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I can see I have to spell this out. I'm was talking about the belief from the innocent camp that for AK to be found guilty required a conspiracy of police, prosecutors and forensic scientists to hide, plant or concoct evidence. I do not accept this CT without evidence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the confusion stems from this sentence, which apparently you penned: "I can't accept the conspiracy that I think is required to maintain a guilt position."

Based on your other posts, I don't think it's unreasonable to see why most would assume you mean "innocence" rather than "guilt," here, but perhaps you are performing some sort of intellectual jiu jitsu or double move that is not readily apparent to the uninitiated.

ETA And, incidentally, I don't think you could possibly be further off base. In fact, in their insistence that Guede, Knox and Sollecito colluded in the death of Meredith Kercher, it is the *guilters* who require a cumbersome conspiracy theory. One that makes a mockery of Occam's Razer. On the other hand, there is no conspiracy, whatsoever, necessary to assume a situation in which a powerful and feared, provincial prosecutor, with a close relationship with local authorities, rams through a deeply problematic and tenuous case. In fact, to rational persons, all the evidence points toward exactly this.
 
Last edited:
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...


The Machine claims to know.
 
komponisto said:
If that were true they wouldn't have appointed Conti and Vecchiotti.

After all, what would have been the point? Why waste all the time and money if outcome of the review literally didn't matter (in the sense that even if it were maximally favorable to the defense, the verdict wouldn't be affected)?

It must be remembered that this isn't an American or British trial, where the jury hasn't heard the case until it's presented in court, and their thoughts are a total mystery (and can't be read by the judge's rulings). Here, the judges and jury are the same. Hence the procedural rulings tell you information about what the jury is thinking - because they're made by the jury! And, just as importantly, they already know what the arguments are. At least, the most important jury members -- the professional judges Hellmann and Zanetti -- do. They've read the motivation document from the first trial, and they've read all the appeal briefs. This is one crucial respect in which the proceeding is more like an appeal in U.S. courts than a jury trial: the case is mainly argued in writing before anyone shows up in the courtroom.

If you know anything about the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, you know that by the time a case is argued orally, the nine justices have already read all of the arguments in the case in written form, and are there mainly just to ask questions of the lawyers to receive clarification on particular points. Although the lawyers always start by going through the motions of "presenting the case", it usually only takes a few seconds before the justices begin interrupting them with questions about the issues they (the justices) are interested in.

This is pretty much analogous to what is going on in Perugia. Hellmann and Zanetti read the appeals, and they decided they wanted clarification on the DNA, so they appointed Conti and Vecchiotti. Since they didn't order reviews of the other evidence (except for that sideshow involving various witnesses, whose purpose may have been just to give them something to do while waiting for C and V to report back), we can assume that that was all the information they needed to make their decision.

Now, given this -- given that the decision was made as soon as the C and V report came out (and, if you insist, after it was debated in court), what do you think that decision is? Do you really think that the presentations by the prosecution and their witnesses -- and the theatrics of the past few days -- were so utterly compelling, that they managed to completely reverse the judges' opinions up to that point, without the judges wanting any more information, argument, or even time to digest these new spectacular revelations?

If Hellmann and his court had been planning to convict, then (1) they wouldn't have granted the review, and (2) if they had granted it, they would have done so in the expectation that it would confirm Stefanoni -- whereupon when it failed to do so, that would have been a surprise that would have caused them to have to regroup, reconsider, and alter the schedule. They would either have begun having genuine doubts (due to the unexpected results), or at the very least would have needed to do some additional CYA work in order to justifiably end up with a guilty verdict (since otherwise everyone will wonder what the point of the C-V review was); either way, what you would see at this point would be more reviews of more aspects of the case, and maybe even a second review of the knife and clasp (per the prosecution's request).

What you would not expect to see is what we're seeing now: Hellmann denying prosecution requests, calling out their shenanigans (e.g. not letting Stefanoni's faked evidence, or this nonsense about prior Cassazione rulings, into the record), and basically expressing impatience with how long this thing has been going on.

Now I could be wrong: perhaps Hellmann could have a sudden change of mind this week (perhaps transfixed by Maresca's awe-inspiring, heartwarming tribute to Meredith) and suddenly become such a full-blooded PMF-style guilter (about the only people who think there isn't reasonable doubt in this case) that he's willing to hurry up and give Amanda and Raffaele the ergastolo (that is, lo slammer for life, as one might put it) by Saturday.

But then again, as Giuseppe Novelli might say: perhaps a meteorite will fall from the sky and knock down the courthouse.
Click to expand...


I too agree with that brilliant analysis …

Also a strong indicator in which way Hellmann's court will proceed and what he thinks about the expert report, is the fact that when Comodi tried to submit her potentially faked report about negativ controll samples into court, he simply told her that even if they had them, it wouldn't help because contamination could still have happened at any other stage of the proceedings …

That obviously means he is taking the expert report very seriously, so that is very indicative …
 
Last edited:
js202 said:
On the other hand, there is no conspiracy, whatsoever, necessary to assume a situation in which a powerful and feared, provincial prosecutor, with a close relationship with local authorities, rams through a deeply problematic and tenuous case. In fact, to rational persons, all the evidence points toward exactly this.
Click to expand...

Well others don't feel the same way. I don't know how many times I've read posts about more than one police destroying or altering evidence; forensic scientists planting evidence or falsifying results and so on. If that's not a long standing conspiracy involving many, I don't know what is.

I can accept mistakes in the investigation, but not the grand conspiracy involving many.
 
Grinder said:
Not since Paris.

I do think your read on the judges laughing at the defense jokes is a very good one.

I will still remain cautiously optimistic.

If they are acquitted, I think the Seattle region believers in not guilty should have a beer in West Seattle.
Click to expand...


Yaaa and lets toss all the empties in a certain someones front yard.

Just kidding Peggy...I do think the FBI should keep a close eye on you though.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
What don't you buy? I've said many times that I have seen no evidence of the conspiracy of evil Italian authorities so many here consider to be clear as day.
Click to expand...

HB never stated you believed there was a conspiracy either. He said you had stated "it requires some sort of vast conspiracy by the police for Knox to be innocent."

Then quoted you saying just that: "for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy"

You can move the goalposts and say you don't believe in a conspiracy either way, but it doesn't change the words you originally wrote or HB's point either.
Personally I don't care either way what you think. But don't think anyone is fooled by your word games.
 
Malkmus said:
HB never stated you believed there was a conspiracy either. He said you had stated "it requires some sort of vast conspiracy by the police for Knox to be innocent."

Then quoted you saying just that: "for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy"

You can move the goalposts and say you don't believe in a conspiracy either way, but it doesn't change the words you originally wrote or HB's point either.
Personally I don't care either way what you think. But don't think anyone is fooled by your word games.
Click to expand...

You read that to mean that I believe in such a conspiracy? Firstly it is out of context, and secondly I have made it clear I don't, unlike others, believe in a conspiracy at all. But if you think you have won a "gotcha" contest, good for you.
 
lionking said:
Well others don't feel the same way. I don't know how many times I've read posts about more than one police destroying or altering evidence; forensic scientists planting evidence or falsifying results and so on. If that's not a long standing conspiracy involving many, I don't know what is.

I can accept mistakes in the investigation, but not the grand conspiracy involving many.
Click to expand...


Rudy Guede attacked and murdered Meredith Kercher. Its not hard to figure out. I have been amazed that some veteran posters on JREF like yourself are incapable of seeing that the conspiracy theories all came from the prosecution.

The Defense for Amanda and Raffaele provides the only logical scenario, yet you wish to call that the conspiracy theory.

This case has highlighted the fact that well educated people can be really stupid sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Malkmus said:
HB never stated you believed there was a conspiracy either. He said you had stated "it requires some sort of vast conspiracy by the police for Knox to be innocent."

Then quoted you saying just that: "for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy"

You can move the goalposts and say you don't believe in a conspiracy either way, but it doesn't change the words you originally wrote or HB's point either.
Personally I don't care either way what you think. But don't think anyone is fooled by your word games.
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal. He'll never admit he's wrong. He clearly gave a false impression if that's not what he meant-----which is fine, but he shouldn't be blaming other people.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
The prosecutors did a great job of summing up the truth in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/26/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal

Hopefully the court will continue to evaluate the evidence fairly (as they have done all along) and not only keep convicted murderer Amanda Knox in prison, but also lengthen her sentence, as has been suggested. All we ask for is justice for Meredith!
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are about to be seriously disappointed. But then you have not participated in this thread except to make snide remarks and refer to AK as "convicted killer Amanda Knox" in a long time. Anyone actually versed in the case, would understand by now that under Italian law someone is not actually considered guilty AND convicted until the final review / appeal of the case at the Supreme Court level.

Actually I would think you would be rooting for innocence at this point. After all, once AK is found not guilty and out of Italy then all of us single issue posters will disappear back to our regular lives and you and your friends will have your little sandbox here to yourselves once again.

Of course, you and some other "regulars" may have to re-think your view of yourselves as the greatest skeptics in the universe.
 
About time for this heathen warlock to retire.

Time for the nightly spell ...

Oh supreme witch in the sky,
Please make Mignini (rhymes with sky).
 
-

Gawd! This is like reliving the whole Bill Clinton "It depends on what your definition of is, is" arguement all over again:

"In order for them to be innocent there would need to be a conspiracy, which I don't believe is possible."

"It doesn't need to be a conspiracy for them to be innocent."

"Yes it would need to be a conspiracy."

"No it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

"No it doesn't."

ad nausea

Agree to disagree please
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
You read that to mean that I believe in such a conspiracy? Firstly it is out of context, and secondly I have made it clear I don't, unlike others, believe in a conspiracy at all. But if you think you have won a "gotcha" contest, good for you.
Click to expand...

Are you purposely this dense? We're not saying you believe in a conspiracy. The point is, you clearly said the innocent position requires a conspiracy by police. You also clearly said that if the court acquits you will accept Amanda and Raffaele as innocent. Thus, by default, if there is an acquittal, by your own principle, you would have to believe in a conspiracy. It's a really simple equation you've inferred on your own.

I don't know if anyone else took what you said to mean that you believed in "such a conspiracy", I surely don't. What I think I clearly inferred was in the event of acquittal, per your own arbitrary rules for yourself you've thrown out in discussion, that yes, you would have to believe in a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
Gawd! This is like reliving the whole Bill Clinton, "it depends on what your definition of is, is" arguement all over again:

"In order for them to be innocent there would need to be a conspiracy, which I don't believe is possible."

"It doesn't need to be a conspiracy for them to be innocent."

"Yes it would need to be a conspiracy."

"No it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

No it doesn't"

ad nausea

Agree to disagree please
Click to expand...

It's funny that you're so irritated by an argument that, based on your brief reenactment of it, clearly shows you have no idea what the argument is amount. You can just ignore, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom