• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paninaro said:
As is someone with 22.000 posts commenting on this? :)

Sollecito and Knox are now free and declared innocent of murder on the grounds of reasonable doubt, as I and others predicted as the only possible outcome.

This means that in the minds of the Italian court and law men Hellmann and Zanetti it does not require believing in a conspiracy on behalf of the police and prosecutors of Perugia to find this possible. They say it was right to investigate and prosecute, but that proof of guilt is lacking. Hellmann says that Guede knows the truth, which I think we can all agree on, and if he doesn't give the details, we will never know exactly what happened.

So are you prepared to change your mind on this subject of a required conspiracy, as the court who considered all the facts of the case do not agree with you?

Aren't you a bit bitter about the verdict yourself?
Click to expand...

None of which deals with the point I (and Mary) was making.

I have already responded to the false claim that I proposed a conspiracy - I was ridiculing those who made the claim. I have never believed in the grand conspiracy some were proposing.

Bitter? I don't care about the verdict. As I have said before, this thread has given me a heap of laughs. As it still does.
 
lionking said:
None of which deals with the point I (and Mary) was making.

I have already responded to the false claim that I proposed a conspiracy - I was ridiculing those who made the claim. I have never believed in the grand conspiracy some were proposing.

Bitter? I don't care about the verdict. As I have said before, this thread has given me a heap of laughs. As it still does.
Click to expand...


You basically implied that in order to believe that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted, one would necessarily have to believe that a large, widespread conspiracy had taken place to - in your opinion - unjustly frame them.

Well, they've now been acquitted. Do you still hold the above opinion?

And it's lovely to see how you get your laughs. Many people read humorous books, or watch funny TV programmes, or share jokes with friends, in order to get laughs. But you choose to troll a discussion about a brutal murder and the subsequent trial process of the alleged perpetrators in order to get your laughs. We're all glad that you find it so very amusing. This thread does indeed have a purpose after all: to provide you with a good laugh. Maybe you should have travelled to Perugia and sat inside the courtroom as the appeal trial was going on. I'm sure your sides would have been splitting with mirth.
 
LondonJohn said:
And it's lovely to see how you get your laughs. Many people read humorous books, or watch funny TV programmes, or share jokes with friends, in order to get laughs. But you choose to troll a discussion about a brutal murder and the subsequent trial process of the alleged perpetrators in order to get your laughs. We're all glad that you find it so very amusing.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. :D
 
truethat said:
The thing that gives me pause are all the lies. In watching that show Mystery 48 hours you could see throughout the cases things that show when a guilty person reveals themselves. It usually starts with their story not adding up. And her story doesn't add up.

As far as someone doing something so horrific, it happens all the time. Especially when drugs or alcohol are involved.

I don't see how she would make up details like going in the kitchen and covering her ears while her friend was murdered if SOMETHING didn't happen.

So while I don't think she actually murdered Meredith, I do think that she did something that caused her to react the way she did.

Some other issues, the break in was staged, so why would RG stage a break in? And that their cell phones were turned off during the time and that they said they watched a movie on his computer and it turned out not to be true.
Click to expand...
It is as I suspected. You trusted your instinct and knowledge of human behavior to draw what seemed to be a logical conclusion, but it was based on filtered and distorted information coming through the 'Mainstream News Media'. Of course we now know that those 'facts' were lies. Perhaps not all bald-faced lies, but insidious lies of omission, distortion, exaggeration, and innuendo. All for one disgustingly amoral purpose - to sell news. :mad:

If you don't believe it then read through this thread from the beginning, and find that every one of those media lies has been thoroughly demolished. And don't think that anybody is looking down on you for being duped, most have at one time or another - me included.

The first time I remember becoming aware of how the media lies was during the Crewe Murder investigation in 1970. A particular piece of gossip news relating to the suspect's brother set off my BS detector, and I then realized that a character assassination was taking place. Unfortunately that first lesson didn't keep me from being sucked into the Azaria Chamberlain case (yes, I really believed that she was the victim of a bizarre religious ritual, and that a dingo would never harm a baby!).
 
By the way, for what it's worth (which is to say quite a lot), Luca Maori - Sollecito's #2 lawyer - stated on the Porta a Porta show last night that he was totally certain that the acquittals were of the 530.1 variety. And, as I've pointed out already, I consider that it was unlikely that any of the prosecution lawyers would want to attach themselves to a position on this issue - even if they were certain - owing to a respect for judicial propriety (i.e. waiting for the written confirmation before second-guessing the court). So Maori's certainty has, in my opinion, got added impact.

But maybe Machiavelli/Yummi would like to contact Maori directly, and tell him that he knows nothing about Italian law, that he has a "plain wrong argument", that he has "an argument which (he) believed to be rational, and was instead a piece of false information". Machiavelli/Yummi can add that Maori is "lecturing (me and/or others) teaching false things on a topic (he) did not know about... and that point, was a point where (he was) proven to be not factual and not rational."

I look forward to that exchange of views :D
 
I see that it's been let slip on .org that they are stalking Stephanie Kercher too....

(I think that fact was meant to remain private: that's why Bard PM'd it to you rather than posting it on the board, Paddy :) )
 
Malfie Henpox said:
I've been a viewer of this forum for years, despite this being my first post. I have to say, this thread makes for extremely uncomfortable reading and is unbecoming of this site. In my opinion, of course.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. I am in complete agreement with you. The problem we have here is the posters that make us feel uncomfortable. I am so glad you brought this up.

I suggest those that are deemed unbecoming of this place be prohibited from posting here. There should be no talk of who is right or wrong, or rational or irrational. Once we get rid of those poor unfortunate, unbecoming souls we can close the thread to new members. That way things will remain comfortable for all of us becoming ones.

We need to start a list. Who shall we start with?
 
RoseMontague said:
Welcome to the forum. I am in complete agreement with you. The problem we have here is the posters that make us feel uncomfortable. I am so glad you brought this up.

I suggest those that are deemed unbecoming of this place be prohibited from posting here. There should be no talk of who is right or wrong, or rational or irrational. Once we get rid of those poor unfortunate, unbecoming souls we can close the thread to new members. That way things will remain comfortable for all of us becoming ones.

We need to start a list. Who shall we start with?
Click to expand...

:D :D
 
RoseMontague said:
Welcome to the forum. I am in complete agreement with you. The problem we have here is the posters that make us feel uncomfortable. I am so glad you brought this up.

I suggest those that are deemed unbecoming of this place be prohibited from posting here. There should be no talk of who is right or wrong, or rational or irrational. Once we get rid of those poor unfortunate, unbecoming souls we can close the thread to new members. That way things will remain comfortable for all of us becoming ones.

We need to start a list. Who shall we start with?
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. Insanity.

But to play along, I nominate everyone who has used the term 'proguilter' for my list. And those that said the Kerchers were either stupid or irrational.

Joining the JREF forum does not automatically make you experts on reason and rationality. Especially if you only post in one thread and scream 'IRRATIONAL' at anyone who opposes your view.

You probably think I think she was guilty. But I don't. It was a tricky case. I think it's best we just let the courts decided. Oh wait, they did. So why are you still attacking posters whose opinion and understanding of the subject is completely unknown to you?

As I said. Unbecoming.
 
Hellmann on last night's Porta a Porta show, that aired on RAI, said he is disappointed at the criticism he has received from the prosecution "ci sono rimasto un po' male". They shouldn't see it as a defeat - they was sufficient evidence that it needed to be reviewed, but the evidence was not convincing. Was the DNA review critical? He didn't respond directly to the question, but he did say that the review was just a confirmation of what was already known from the first trial - that there were problems with it! Interesting! It shows already, IMO, what he thought of the first trial.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
This is what I'm talking about. Insanity.

But to play along, I nominate everyone who has used the term 'proguilter' for my list. And those that said the Kerchers were either stupid or irrational.

Joining the JREF forum does not automatically make you experts on reason and rationality. Especially if you only post in one thread and scream 'IRRATIONAL' at anyone who opposes your view.

You probably think I think she was guilty. But I don't. It was a tricky case. I think it's best we just let the courts decided. Oh wait, they did. So why are you still attacking posters whose opinion and understanding of the subject is completely unknown to you?

As I said. Unbecoming.
Click to expand...

Who here has called the proguilters proguilters? I don't recall seeing anything like that. The Kercher's may have not been completely rational in their relentless pursuit of keeping two innocent kids in jail but calling them irrational makes me uncomfortable.

We should start with a codeword for these proguilters, that way the term proguilters will not make us uncomfortable. How about witch hunters?

It might be best if we let the courts decide on the code word as well. They always get it right, unless they decide the first court got it wrong.
 
proguilter

Malfie Henpox said:
This is what I'm talking about. Insanity.

But to play along, I nominate everyone who has used the term 'proguilter' for my list. And those that said the Kerchers were either stupid or irrational.

Joining the JREF forum does not automatically make you experts on reason and rationality. Especially if you only post in one thread and scream 'IRRATIONAL' at anyone who opposes your view.

You probably think I think she was guilty. But I don't. It was a tricky case. I think it's best we just let the courts decided. Oh wait, they did. So why are you still attacking posters whose opinion and understanding of the subject is completely unknown to you?

As I said. Unbecoming.
Click to expand...
Malfie Henpox,

The terms most often used are guilter and pro-guilt. I don't recall seeing "proguilter." A woman walked into a burglary in progress, and it escalated into sexual assault and murder. The case is actually quite simple.
 
Mary_H said:
curi0us, I love you, but Malfie was not necessarily criticizing the side you're on. :cool:
Click to expand...
Very kind words but I think you misunderstand my side. I will argue with bolint, shuttit and thoughtful but they are on my side. Anyone who mocks rational debate with a holier than thou attitude is not on my side even if they superficially agree with me. Seriously look at what Malfie wrote again:
Malfie Henpox said:
The constant 'You're not rational', 'No, you're not rational' arguments. Some of things said about the Kerchers. The bashing of those with differing opinions. The general air of pretentious superiority.
Click to expand...
Do You really think that is a fair description of this thread? Would you describe it as a place of "constant" 'You're not rational', 'No, you're not rational' arguments"?

I see plenty of very rational arguments being made in this thread and consider it an insult to many thoughtful posters here to suggest they are just engaging in childish back and forth name calling as Malfie described.

Of course someone like Lionking wants people to view this thread as Malfie described it, so like clockwork:
lionking said:
Absolutely. And someone with around 100 posts in seven years "curious" about someone who has been lurking without posting is just too funny for words.
Click to expand...
Poor reading comprehension on your part, I expressed no curiosity about why Malfie would lurk for years, I obviously am a lurking type as well so there is no mystery for me there. But precisely because I am a mostly lurker the question of what motivates a person to suddenly start posting maybe is something I have more empathy for then you. The JREF Knox thread was mocked for quite a while and even considered woo by some here. Then just a few days after a verdict which completely validates the thread's existence a new poster who says they were reading the forum for years says they were so offended by the AK thread they just needed to suddenly sign up and tell everyone how the AK thread is, "extremely uncomfortable reading and is unbecoming the site" with the "bashing of those with different opinions" and the "pretentious air of superiority". Really?

Malfie Henpox said:
Yes. That's it. Posts like that.
Click to expand...
My reply to your specific statements was intended to further discussion. Your reply suggests you are not really interested in a discussion, maybe I am mistaken so help me out here. I believe you are wrong in your blanket description of this thread and wrong to ignore the greater context of the discussion taking place here. And you think I am wrong as well. So there is an impasse, what do you think the next step beyond us both calling the other one's positions wrong should be?
 
Last edited:
curi0us said:
Very kind words but I think you misunderstand my side. I will argue with bolint, shuttit and thoughtful but they are on my side. Anyone who mocks rational debate with a holier than thou attitude is not on my side even if they superficially agree with me. Seriously look at what Malfie wrote again:
Do You really think that is fair description of this thread. Would you describe it as a place of "constant" 'You're not rational', 'No, you're not rational' arguments"?

I see plenty of very rational arguments being made in this thread and consider it an insult to many thoughtful posters here to suggest they are just engaging in childish back and forth name calling as Malfie described.

Of course someone like Lionking wants people to view this thread as Malfie described it, so like clockwork:
Poor reading comprehension on your part, I expressed no curiosity about why Malfie would lurk for years, I obviously am a lurking type as well so there is no mystery for me there. But precisely because I am a mostly lurker the question of what motivates a person to suddenly start posting maybe is something I have more empathy for then you. The JREF Knox thread was mocked for quite a while and even considered woo by some here. Then just a few days after a verdict which completely validates the thread's existence a new poster who says they were reading the forum for years says they were so offended by the AK thread they just needed to suddenly sign up and tell everyone how the AK thread is, "extremely uncomfortable reading and is unbecoming the site" with the "bashing of those with different opinions" and the "pretentious air of superiority". Really?

My reply to your specific statements was intended to further discussion. Your reply suggests you are not really interested in a discussion, maybe I am mistaken so help me out here. I believe you are wrong in your blanket description of this thread and wrong to ignore the greater context of the discussion taking place here. And you think I am wrong as well. So there is an impasse, what do you think the next step beyond us both calling the other one's positions wrong should be?
Click to expand...

I think when Malfie said he/she didn't like the term proguilters or criticism of the Kerchers it became rather obvious which side he/she is being critical of regardless of what opinion this poster has on guilt or innocence.

I like a debate with both sides of the case involved. I believe the best way to determine the truth is to expose each side of the argument to counter-argument and discussion. I like an uncomfortable debate with my beliefs challenged and I believe that is the best way to go about determining the truth of things. None of us own the truth, it exists independent of our opinion.
 
RoseMontague said:
Who here has called the proguilters proguilters? I don't recall seeing anything like that. The Kercher's may have not been completely rational in their relentless pursuit of keeping two innocent kids in jail but calling them irrational makes me uncomfortable.

We should start with a codeword for these proguilters, that way the term proguilters will not make us uncomfortable. How about witch hunters?

It might be best if we let the courts decide on the code word as well. They always get it right, unless they decide the first court got it wrong.
Click to expand...

How about 'people'? Yes. That's a nice term for describing people. It's almost like it was made for it. And there is no indication of negative aspersions.

I think the Kerchers probably just wanted justice. You know, for their dead daughter.

And Curious, my next step is to enjoy the rest of this site, now that I have finally registered. Your next step is your own to choose.
 
And yes. I am extremely critical of some of the behaviour on this thread. And it doesn't matter how many times you write uncomfortable in hyphens. I'm assuming to you this is some form of mockery. To me it only highlights my point.
 
RoseMontague said:
I think when Malfie said he/she didn't like the term proguilters or criticism of the Kerchers it became rather obvious which side he/she is being critical of regardless of what opinion this poster has on guilt or innocence.

I like a debate with both sides of the case involved. I believe the best way to determine the truth is to expose each side of the argument to counter-argument and discussion. I like an uncomfortable debate with my beliefs challenged and I believe that is the best way to go about determining the truth of things. None of us own the truth, it exists independent of our opinion.
Click to expand...

Outrageous. There is no room on this thread for the counter argument. As the hounding of those who hold it proves.

You don't know the truth. You know there wasn't enough evidence to imprison them. As do we all. The rest is hyperbole and conjecture.

You attempt to say I'm dogmatic, I think, because I said some of the thread makes for uncomfortable reading. This is just wild, unsupported nonsense.

But mock away.

I have nothing more to add. My point is clear. It's an opinion, I'm sure you can deal with that on an open forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom