Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

You have got to be kidding me - if either site is to be classified as 'cult' it is this one - people do not leave here because they are proved wrong, just the opposite, they finally get tired of the abuse they get from so many different posters - your side never loses a debate because things you can not explain you just make up unbelievable responses to and toss them away. I would love to find a honest site where this case could be discussed like PMF has for Guilty views, and you guys have here for Innocent views, I'm looking for one that's in between, with no luck.

Now you are just fooling yourself Sherlock. You have a problem on this forum because your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and that bothers you. It is understandable that you feel ineffectual here. Because no one gives a poor argument a break. If you are wrong here, you either have to have the intellectual honesty to come to grips with your mistake or you end up desperately flailing away and feeling "picked" on.

Nobody can make you learn. If you are attached to ignorance and faulty analysis your arguments will be picked apart here. It is a simple as that. PMF and TJMK allow only their version of the truth. Not the actual truth. It is like the Emperor's subjects that insist that the King's clothes are beautiful when they are non-existent. But unlike that children's story, members at PMF circle the wagons and insist that earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth or that evolution and global warming is a myth.

You are not allowed to post a position here without defending it with reason and facts. If you are weak and cannot evolve and adapt to reality, you are like the dinosaur, you will not survive. If you think that is mean...oh well.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now you are just fooling yourself Sherlock. You have a problem on this forum because your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and that bothers you. It is understandable that you feel ineffectual here. Because no one gives a poor argument a break. If you are wrong here, you either have to have the intellectual honesty to come to grips with your mistake or you end up desperately flailing away and feeling "picked" on.

Nobody can make you learn. If you are attached to ignorance and faulty analysis your arguments will be picked apart here. It is a simple as that. PMF and TJMK allow only their version of the truth. Not the actual truth. It is like the Emperor's subjects that insist that the King's clothes are beautiful when they are non-existent. But unlike that children's story, members at PMF circle the wagons and insist that earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth or that evolution and global warming is a myth.

You are not allowed to post a position here without defending it with reason and facts. If you are weak and cannot evolve and adapt to reality, you are like the dinosaur, you will not survive. If you think that is mean...oh well.

Well, let's see then, go ahead and explain to me Rudi's first foot print left in blood leading out of Meredith's door, you of course must believe he locked that door with his back to it - please explain this to me, I know Mary locks all her doors like this all the time, but do you believe this as well, I'm curious.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, let's see then, go ahead and explain to me Rudi's first foot print left in blood leading out of Meredith's door, you of course must believe he locked that door with his back to it - please explain this to me, I know Mary locks all her doors like this all the time, but do you believe this as well, I'm curious.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Rudy's "shoe prints are seen heading out the door but only one shoe. What is your point? Maybe I'm being dense, but could you elaborate as to what your point is.?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, let's see then, go ahead and explain to me Rudi's first foot print left in blood leading out of Meredith's door, you of course must believe he locked that door with his back to it - please explain this to me, I know Mary locks all her doors like this all the time, but do you believe this as well, I'm curious.

When you first proposed this idea, or at least when you first told me about it, someone in our place of work actually did when leaving and locking up what you say Rudy could not have done.

I'll give you that this is curious and perhaps something to be investigated. But you seem to have made this the Rosetta Stone of the case. I respectfully disagree.

Which, BTW, if I'd said that at PMF, I would have been banned.

 

[Dan O.]

This has been explained. Did you not read the answers? The known evidence cannot rule out that Rudy locked Meredith's door while standing on his left foot which was facing away from the door. Neither can the evidence rule out that Rudy transferred his weight to his right foot as he pivoted to turn and lock the door. And finally, the evidence cannot rule out Rudy walking to the front door turning around and walking back to Meredith's room then locking the bedroom door before leaving the cottage. These are three possibilities that leave the same physical evidence while having Rudy lock Merediths door. You must rule out all three before you can rule out that it was Rudy that locked that door.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not banned at dot org but my posts are subject to a peculiar form of moderation in which they never appear . I was banned from dot net for being 'boring' (about the lamp - I shall be banned from here too one day if I keep harping on about it). I never really got far enough to be actually banned at TJ. My posts just stopped appearing even though I can spell 'homicide' (unlike Williams).

Come on. I am never boring.

An introverted accountant looks at his shoes when talking to you. An extroverted lawyer looks at your shoes.

As to solicitors.....

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Well, let's see then, go ahead and explain to me Rudi's first foot print left in blood leading out of Meredith's door, you of course must believe he locked that door with his back to it - please explain this to me, I know Mary locks all her doors like this all the time, but do you believe this as well, I'm curious.

The footprints faded to nothing as he proceeded down the hall and through the kitchen/common area. He might have gotten to the entrance and realized he needed her keys to get out, and locked the door to her room after he went back to get them.

Or he might have simply put his bloody shoe in that spot when he locked the door. It's impossible to know for sure. This particular crime scene allows for a far more detailed reconstruction than most, but it doesn't document every move he made while he was in the house.

 

[Bill Williams]

Case in point about cultish behaviour at PMFs and TJMK.

Leila/Thoughful on IIP brings her "Math on Trial" thread, and we have it out. On the face of it, this is not a conversation about the horrid Perugia murder; it's simply a conversation about math and statistics.

I catch out Leila on the flaw in her reasoning.... she is using the priniciples of discrete data sampling to try to decipher the DNA test, which is an example of continuous data sampling. Applies and oranges.

If I'd done this on PMF or TJMK I would have been banned. Why? Because discussing ANY evidence in a manner which even grants the most slight advantage to the defence is banned. Somehow, disrespecting Leila's math-analysis is also disrespecting Meredith.

I have grounds for saying this. I was banned on TJMK for saying that the break-in was real and eminently doable. Esp. for someone like Rudy with a history. Unlike anglolawyer I was not banned for being boring, I was not banned for disrupting the flow of argument there - PQ implied that I was banned for misspelling "homocide". At the very least, like on a 3rd grade playground, a spelling mistake was turned into me being a troll.

Oh yes, when Leila defended her use of discrete data sampling methods (dice rolling) to understand continuous data sampling (DNA analysis); she did not defend the math - she said I was confirmation biased.

Sheesh. She wouldn't talk the math. For my money, not talking the math is a sign of confirmation bias about the larger issue, but hey, I'm funny that way.

 

[yimyammer]

I came across something recently that disturbed me. I was looking for some information and found this forum of which I link one of the posts and reproduce it below:



Some of that is true, I for one did have google alerts set to Amanda Knox and posted throughout the ether on the case, as did many others. However the fact that it was never necessary to ensure that those that thought them guilty couldn't post like they do at PMF or TJMK shows that the contentions of those who think them innocent do not have to be protected from scrutiny like the guilt sites do--and this post suggests they've tried to do in that forum as well. Apparently Katy-Did tried to join that forum and that message implies she was unable to, perhaps because they 'exposed' her as a member of the 'PR campaign.'

I've been a member of that forum for years, its a great forum that covers a wide range of topics besides & including poker. There are a lot of very smart people there who I respect and give consideration to their opinions. I participated in that thread extensively for quite a while and finally realized I was wasting my life on the time suck that is discussing the case with people firmly entrenched in one view who shout down and belittle every point or perspective that doesn't align with their view.

The guy you quoted is very knowledgeable about the case & I believe he said he reads/speaks Italian. However, he is obsessively married to the conclusion of guilt and will not consider any other possibility. I think of the phrase "knowledge makes arrogant" when reading his posts but I'd add "Arrogance makes blind" because if you're so arrogant to think you can never be wrong about anything, then you'll never see when you are wrong. He has some sort of law background and I actually think he's screwing with everyone in that thread by playing the role of prosecutor he never got a chance to be because he got out of the law game or didn't finish LS or something. He's so over the top on the side of guilt & unwilling to see the evidence in any other light but he's an intelligent guy so he is either willfully making this choice as part of wearing his prosecutor hat or he is actually deranged enough to believe everything he writes.

He and a poster named "239" have gone at it for years. (I heard about this place from 239's posts--->Are you reading this? Whats your screen name here?) Someone wrote a script showing how many posts each have made and their word count and I think they both exceeded 500,000 words. That thread was fascinating as is this case in general. There is so much to learn on a huge range of subjects by simply following this case with an open mind. I guess that's why I keep an eye on it when I have the time.

As far as this Katy person not being able to join the site, I serious doubt that occurred. Anyone can join at anytime, its easy. The moderators are pretty good and keep things under control and organized making it a great place to go to discuss just about any subject under the sun. I am a little surprised that forum didn't get more pro-innocence folk to counter the pro-guilt crowd but from the folks I spoke to, they had better things to do than go down the black hole of never-ending backing forth to accomplish absolutely nothing. I mean who cares what some obsessed nutcase that appears to camp out in front of his computer 24/7 thinks? Might as well talk to a wall, which is why I quit posting in that thread months ago.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I used to post on Frank's asking them what they were doing for Meredith as they alleged was their purpose. They never have done anything unless you count SA putting plastic flowers on the gate after meeting Curatolo and determining that he was an honest clear thinking man.<snip>

They were silk.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This has been explained. Did you not read the answers? The known evidence cannot rule out that Rudy locked Meredith's door while standing on his left foot which was facing away from the door. Neither can the evidence rule out that Rudy transferred his weight to his right foot as he pivoted to turn and lock the door. And finally, the evidence cannot rule out Rudy walking to the front door turning around and walking back to Meredith's room then locking the bedroom door before leaving the cottage. These are three possibilities that leave the same physical evidence while having Rudy lock Merediths door. You must rule out all three before you can rule out that it was Rudy that locked that door.

And why must I rule out these 3 first - no one said it was impossible, just extremely improbable. You likely won't see this, but it doesn't matter what evidence is brought forward, it can be disputed in some was, a picture of a dead Meredith on Amanda's phone, while extremely incriminating, is not 100 proof, maybe it was planted there by those terrible police that want he found guilty at all costs.
Maybe Rudi had someone else with him that locked that door we don't know about, but the most likely answer, unless you only have Amanda innocent vision, is Rudi did not lock that door, and if he didn't, then not only did someone else lock it, but also staged a break in because Rudi went out of an unlocked front door.

 

[acbytesla]

And why must I rule out these 3 first - no one said it was impossible, just extremely improbable. You likely won't see this, but it doesn't matter what evidence is brought forward, it can be disputed in some was, a picture of a dead Meredith on Amanda's phone, while extremely incriminating, is not 100 proof, maybe it was planted there by those terrible police that want he found guilty at all costs.
Maybe Rudi had someone else with him that locked that door we don't know about, but the most likely answer, unless you only have Amanda innocent vision, is Rudi did not lock that door, and if he didn't, then not only did someone else lock it, but also staged a break in because Rudi went out of an unlocked front door.

What makes it extremely improbable? The simple fact that you say it is extremely improbable doesn't make it so. Y

And yes it is possible that someone else locked that door but it is also not the most likely answer. Declaring it to be does not make it so. And the whole idea that it was a staged break is laughable since there is no evidence point to that.

There is no reason not to believe that Rudy could have locked the bedroom door and not have locked the front door. It was testified to by the housemates that securing the front door was sometimes difficult for them. And Rudy was a stranger and unfamiliar with the door and the lock. It is far more plausible that Rudy tried to lock the door but panicked struggling with the door and the lock and the thought of being recognized standing outside the cottage door and just decided to get out of there. That his flight panic kicked in.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

O

What makes it extremely improbable? The simple fact that you say it is extremely improbable doesn't make it so. Y

And yes it is possible that someone else locked that door but it is also not the most likely answer. Declaring it to be does not make it so. And the whole idea that it was a staged break is laughable since there is no evidence point to that.

There is no reason not to believe that Rudy could have locked the bedroom door and not have locked the front door. It was testified to by the housemates that securing the front door was sometimes difficult for them. And Rudy was a stranger and unfamiliar with the door and the lock. It is far more plausible that Rudy tried to lock the door but panicked struggling with the door and the lock and the thought of being recognized standing outside the cottage door and just decided to get out of there. That his flight panic kicked in.

I would assume he was even less familiar with locking Meredith's door, in the dark and not even knowing which key it might be, that he was confident enough to not have to even turn to face the door to do that. But again, not impossible, even if there were a 1percent chance of something, you can not rule it out, but you can state how unlikely it actually is.

 

[Welshman]

A question I have asked is if the prosecution had such a strong case against Amanda and and Raffaele and a mountain of hard evidence against them, why is that on the TJMK/PMF guilter sites no one is allowed to question the case and no debate is allowed. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, the members of TJMK/PMF should have no problems answering questions regarding the case or engaging in debate.

 

[acbytesla]

O


I would assume he was even less familiar with locking Meredith's door, in the dark and not even knowing which key it might be, that he was confident enough to not have to even turn to face the door to do that. But again, not impossible, even if there were a 1percent chance of something, you can not rule it out, but you can state how unlikely it actually is.

How do you estimate the chance at 1 percent? Pulling that out of the sky?
Why not say 90%? You have no idea of the percentage, you are just making it up.

But you're right about one thing, outside in the dark is different than a lighted hallway. How many keys were on Meredith's key ring? 3 maybe 4 at the most? Doesn't sound all that difficult to me. Why is it needed that Rudy turns his feet? It is very easy to turn at the waist. Why is that so hard to conceive?

But if the lock is giving you trouble, that is a different thing. And outside Rudy surely would feel more vulnerable.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A question I have asked is if the prosecution had such a strong case against Amanda and and Raffaele and a mountain of hard evidence against them, why is that on the TJMK/PMF guilter sites no one is allowed to question the case and no debate is allowed. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, the members of TJMK/PMF should have no problems answering questions regarding the case or engaging in debate.

Because, if they want to debate there are numerous sites they can go to, and do. There site was set up for those who believe Amanda and Raf guilty, someone there decided they didn't want to put up with all those who want to argue otherwise, call it a support site for guitars it you like, it's their decision to run it however they like.

 

[yimyammer]

You have got to be kidding me - if either site is to be classified as 'cult' it is this one - people do not leave here because they are proved wrong, just the opposite, they finally get tired of the abuse they get from so many different posters - your side never loses a debate because things you can not explain you just make up unbelievable responses to and toss them away. I would love to find a honest site where this case could be discussed like PMF has for Guilty views, and you guys have here for Innocent views, I'm looking for one that's in between, with no luck.

Me too, the case seems to always be discussed in extremes where neither side is able to concede anything which IMO stifles discussion and makes the truth harder to divine.

I think for a lot of people, this case is no longer about whether AK (et al) is guilty or innocent, its about being right, winning and belittling and humiliating anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusion on the matter.

I haven't been posting here long, but from what I've seen so far, things seem pretty civil here and I haven't noticed anyone being "mean" to you. Do you feel the recent discussion has been unfair and mean toward you specifically?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

O


I would assume he was even less familiar with locking Meredith's door, in the dark and not even knowing which key it might be, that he was confident enough to not have to even turn to face the door to do that. But again, not impossible, even if there were a 1percent chance of something, you can not rule it out, but you can state how unlikely it actually is.

The way to determine what is likely is to evaluate the totality of the evidence. You are elaborating a thesis from one vague element. That's what the truthers do. They find some detail that they say cannot be explained by planes crashing into a skyscraper, and on that basis they indict the US gov't for blowing up the WTC on purpose. But most people look at the big picture and think they are nuts.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How do you estimate the chance at 1 percent? Pulling that out of the sky?
Why not say 90%? You have no idea of the percentage, you are just making it up.

But you're right about one thing, outside in the dark is different than a lighted hallway. How many keys were on Meredith's key ring? 3 maybe 4 at the most? Doesn't sound all that difficult to me. Why is needed that Rudy turns his feet? It is very easy to turn at the waist. Why is that so hard to conceive?

But if the lock is giving you trouble, that is a different thing. And outside Rudy surely would feel more vulnerable.

Your making me look here, now come on, I said 'even if' and 'of something' regarding the 1percent. I'm also guessing no hall light but light outside by front door, why do you say lighted hallway? And try it if you haven't already, again, not impossible, just highly improbable.

 

[Bill Williams]

Because, if they want to debate there are numerous sites they can go to, and do. There site was set up for those who believe Amanda and Raf guilty, someone there decided they didn't want to put up with all those who want to argue otherwise, call it a support site for guitars it you like, it's their decision to run it however they like.

I heartily agree with that last sentence, the webmaster has the right to run things the way they see fit. However, they still have to live with the kind of place they end up having.

Do you approve of the kind of name calling against Knox who you yourself say is innocent of the crime. The kinds of psychopathology and general weirdness they assign to Knox... frequent use of pejorative terms like "knife boy" for Sollecito, and practically a cheering section for Rudy Guede who they regard as a victim of Knox's... even with Guede's biological material found inside the true victim here.

And defence of them - other than they have a right to run it as they see fit - is lacking in discernment to say the least.

And.... in fact they DO debate the case. They just do not allow input from anyone who strays from the party line.

I mean, how vociferous have you been in Knox's innocent of the murder? Wht was the reaction?