Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

Rolfe: I am in awe of your IQ. Did not mean to offend you, but I am female (assuming by your name you are not??) and do not trust other females. Sorry.

Well, of course I could be lying. It just so happens I'm not. (And to be honest, I didn't think I'd done myself justice, as I had bad menstrual cramps at the time of the test.)

Rolfe.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Rolfe: I am in awe of your IQ. Did not mean to offend you, but I am female (assuming by your name you are not??) and do not trust other females. Sorry.

Well, I'm not female, and should therefore probably not make gender generalizations, but I would note that every one of the most vehement guilters I know are female -- and claim that the only people who could ever think Knox anything other than obviously guilty are males who secretly fantasize about getting into her pants.

But I guess I should bow to your judgment, since my IQ is only 152.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Mine is 83. Is lower better?

Wow, you sure use a whole lotta fancy, high-falutin' words for someone with an 83 IQ!

 

[Rolfe]

 

[komponisto]

Ha. I read that last sentence as "Jury start by discussing lunchtime".

Well, with so much talk of food at the trial already...

(Maybe Comodi is the caterer? )

 

[DarkStar2011]

(Maybe Comodi is the caterer? )

If so, Hellmann better hire a food-taster.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well, of course I could be lying. It just so happens I'm not. (And to be honest, I didn't think I'd done myself justice, as I had bad menstrual cramps at the time of the test.)

Rolfe.

You're not male???

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well, I'm not female, and should therefore probably not make gender generalizations, but I would note that every one of the most vehement guilters I know are female -- and claim that the only people who could ever think Knox anything other than obviously guilty are males who secretly fantasize about getting into her pants.

But I guess I should bow to your judgment, since my IQ is only 152.

I have never been in the presence of so many geniuses .....I feel the same about mistrust of female jurists.

 

[Rolfe]

You're not male???

Nope. Rolfe was my cat's name. And sometimes it's fun to be ambiguous on the internet.

 

[Rolfe]

Stilicho doesn't post here much now. I'd be interested to hear him defend this one at JREF.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewto...79855719f4e8d44fd0f5566383&start=3500#p103031

Many of the FOA/JLOL types get it backwards. They think you're supposed do the forensics first, compose a hypothesis, and then declare guilt or innocence.

Oh, we're wrong. You don't do the forensics first and identify a suspect based on evidence, you pull in the first handy person you see and if they contradict themselves or say something untrue while you're "questioning" them with tea and biscuits, they're guilty, case closed.

How silly we've been!

Rolfe.

 

[theRealBob]

Although I am not making any predictions here either, I think we are in danger here of reading things into this that may not be valid.

Here are my thoughts on the list:

• polls with Italian women anti-Knox gender of jurors is a valid point, but the poll is of people with much less knowlege of the actual evidence vs the jurors
• pieces appearing in the Italian media which seem anti-Knox hard to read this, hasn't there been a swing towards her?
• the look of the jury, female -dominated again, valid, but I don't want to make the mistake that people have made about Amanda, and assume that because they are women, they will automatically think or behave some way. If, at some point, they came to believe she is innocent, I think women might also be likely to have great sympathy towards her
• Hellman having lunch AND dinner catered in, as though a bunch of points to deal with -UGH

On the last one, the truth is they DO have a bunch of points to deal with. Although those of us who believe her innocent would like to assume that no deliberations are necessary, it doesn't make sense to me that they would not need to go over the case in detail. I am hopeful that the more time they spend on the facts, rather than the character issues, the more likely they are to see there is no case here.

I think that if Hellman and his jurors came to a verdict in ten miutes it would give Mignini and co the opportunity to say to the Supreme court that the appeal level court was not properly conducted.

They must be seen to be weighing the facts.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Nope. Rolfe was my cat's name. And sometimes it's fun to be ambiguous on the internet.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think that if Hellman and his jurors came to a verdict in ten miutes it would give Mignini and co the opportunity to say to the Supreme court that the appeal level court was not properly conducted.

They must be seen to be weighing the facts.

Good point, and I hope you're right...

 

[Rolfe]

I think that if Hellman and his jurors came to a verdict in ten miutes it would give Mignini and co the opportunity to say to the Supreme court that the appeal level court was not properly conducted.

They must be seen to be weighing the facts.

They've got a lot to go over, and the calumny charge in respect of Patrick is not clear-cut either way.

Rolfe.

 

[theRealBob]

My conclusion: Knox and Sollecito are going to be acquitted tomorrow. And that verdict will be reached correctly and justly, based entirely on the facts and evidence available. It will have had nothing to do with the media circus, political pressure, the mythical multi-million-dollar PR supertanker, or any other extraneous factor. The simple truth is that there is not (and never was) any reason to find Knox or Sollecito guilty of this horrific crime.

My opinion was that from the moment Hellman appeared on the scene, before the aquittal trial even began he gave the impression of not believing in Massei's verdict and also his methods.

 

[smkovalinksy]

My opinion was that from the moment Hellman appeared on the scene, before the aquittal trial even began he gave the impression of not believing in Massei's verdict and also his methods.

Mine, too - but I fear his is tricking us.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Mine, too - but I fear his is tricking us.

I don't think Hellmann is "tricking us" -- but I do think that the quick assumption that "the panel will rule whichever way he decides" may be a bit too optimistic. Even if he's already decided on acquittal, it will take at least three votes out of the remaining seven for him to prevail, and it's possible he might not get that.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Oh, we're wrong. You don't do the forensics first and identify a suspect based on evidence, you pull in the first handy person you see and if they contradict themselves or say something untrue while you're "questioning" them with tea and biscuits, they're guilty, case closed.

Actually, you haven't spelled it out accurately. According to that post, it's

1) figure out who's guilty, then
2) make up an hypothesis of why they're guilty, then
3) come up with the forensic evidence to fit that hypothesis.

Sure sounds like Mignini's method to me!

 

[mdana]

It's Amanda's blood. But I see none on the handle. It's either dirt or a reflection you're looking at. The little bright red dots are the blood.

Are we even sure that is blood? There was fake blood from Meredith's Halloween costume found in the sink area too, which made it look saturated with much more potential evidence than it actually was.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I don't think Hellmann is "tricking us" -- but I do think that the quick assumption that "the panel will rule whichever way he decides" may be a bit too optimistic. Even if he's already decided on acquittal, it will take at least three votes out of the remaining seven for him to prevail, and it's possible he might not get that.

...........