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

[anglolawyer]

Because they weren't (aren't) psychotic, cannibalistic nuts. With who they were (are) as people, you just can't get as far as the knife in the kitchen. To do so, you have to presuppose they have committed the murder and decided the kitchen drawer is a good place to hide the knife. To get to the point of them devising strategic plans like that to deal with the evidence, such as staging a burglary and keeping the knife, you have to turn them into something they were (are) not.

In the extremely unlikely event they somehow ended up being part of a scene that ended in Meredith's death, there is no way they, being who they are, would not fall apart immediately.

I know this isn't a very good explanation, but the thing is, it is not valid to start from Point B or C in this case, without addressing Point A.

Petitio principii

 

[acbytesla]

Because they weren't (aren't) psychotic, cannibalistic nuts. With who they were (are) as people, you just can't get as far as the knife in the kitchen. To do so, you have to presuppose they have committed the murder and decided the kitchen drawer is a good place to hide the knife. To get to the point of them devising strategic plans like that to deal with the evidence, such as staging a burglary and keeping the knife, you have to turn them into something they were (are) not.

In the extremely unlikely event they somehow ended up being part of a scene that ended in Meredith's death, there is no way they, being who they are, would not fall apart immediately.

I know this isn't a very good explanation, but the thing is, it is not valid to start from Point B or C in this case, without addressing Point A.

I think it is an excellent explanation Mary. Kudos. I can't see Amanda not totally falling apart. I've seen too many interviews of her now. This is not the person who could be involved in this and not break down and tell the whole true story of what happened.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think it is an excellent explanation Mary. Kudos. I can't see Amanda not totally falling apart. I've seen too many interviews of her now. This is not the person who could be involved in this and not break down and tell the whole true story of what happened.

Please be more sparing with that kudos. It may (or may not) be an excellent argument but it is also an abandonment of the field so far as concerns the argument we were actually having.

 

[Mary_H]

Please be more sparing with that kudos. It may (or may not) be an excellent argument but it is also an abandonment of the field so far as concerns the argument we were actually having.

Shut up.

 

[Mary_H]

Petitio principii

I know it sounds like it, but I'm not so sure it is, if you start from a presumption of innocence.

 

[acbytesla]

Please be more sparing with that kudos. It may (or may not) be an excellent argument but it is also an abandonment of the field so far as concerns the argument we were actually having.

Clive, have you gone over the edge?? I didn't say it was an excellent argument, I said it was an excellent explanation. I think her point is good though.

I also agree with you that Mary is begging the question as you pointed out. But she's not really arguing the case. It would be unreasonable in court, but Mary is not in court.

And Mary... Kudos, Kudos, Kudos...

Neener, neener Clive...

 

[anglolawyer]

Shut up.

Petitio principii

I know it sounds like it, but I'm not so sure it is, if you start from a presumption of innocence.

There is something wrong with this but right now I can't put my finger on it. I don't think the presumption of innocence is a premise in an argument. Maybe that's it.

 

[Mary_H]

Clive, have you gone over the edge?? I didn't say it was an excellent argument, I said it was an excellent explanation. I think her point is good though.

I also agree with you that Mary is begging the question as you pointed out. But she's not really arguing the case. It would be unreasonable in court, but Mary is not in court.

And Mary... Kudos, Kudos, Kudos...

Neener, neener Clive...

Thank you, acbytesla! anglolawyer is a dork.

 

[anglolawyer]

Clive, have you gone over the edge?? I didn't say it was an excellent argument, I said it was an excellent explanation. I think her point is good though.

I also agree with you that Mary is begging the question as you pointed out. But she's not really arguing the case. It would be unreasonable in court, but Mary is not in court.

And Mary... Kudos, Kudos, Kudos...

Neener, neener Clive...

I went over the edge a long time ago.

 

[Mary_H]

There is something wrong with this but right now I can't put my finger on it. I don't think the presumption of innocence is a premise in an argument. Maybe that's it.

I am liable to agree with you in a few hours. Right now I am getting too tired. Good night.

 

[acbytesla]

I went over the edge a long time ago.

I've hit the rocks below.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thank you, acbytesla! anglolawyer is a dork.

where are the mods?

 

[acbytesla]

where are the mods?

Waaaaahhhh.. Only kidding.

 

[anglolawyer]

Waaaaahhhh.. Only kidding.

By the way, who is 'Clive'?

 

[acbytesla]

By the way, who is 'Clive'?

Maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. I was under the impression that was your handle at another forum.. you know the one.

 

[anglolawyer]

Maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. I was under the impression that was your handle at another forum.. you know the one.

You mean the fake lawyer. Please don't mix me up with him!

 

[acbytesla]

You mean the fake lawyer. Please don't mix me up with him!

I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. Do you play chess??

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. Do you play chess??

1 e4

 

[Dan O.]

Yea except for that inconvenient starch sample found on the blade by C&V which was somehow missed by Lab tech Stefanoni. That would appear to indicate the knife was used to cut ohhh bread perhaps.

You are presuming that Stefanoni's lab people weren't the ones that used it. We have testimony that it was in fact exceptionally clean when it was collected from Raffaele's utensil drawer. Of course it's justified, you know how difficult it can be to slice open a bagel with one of those little plastic knives.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, I agree with Randy on this one, too. I guess it's because the Italians are just beginning to get their feet wet in the adversarial system, but their cross-examinations stink.

What makes anyone think that they can hide a knife from the Italian authorities when it was proved impossible to wash away incriminating DNA that wasn't there from the flat shiny metal surface?

Let's say you had perfectly disposed of that knife a month before the crime. This will probably delay discovery by a week to 10 days at most. Instead of finding the knife on the 6th, they will discover the inventory and this will tell them there is a knife and they will find it either in the drawer or in some super hiding place that their policing skills will lead them to. They will subsequently have intercepted recordings of you telling your dad that they couldn't have found the knife because you had disposed of it and portions of that recording will be leaked to the press.

Now, if it were to come out that the police must have the wrong knife because the real murder weapon is buried next to the fence in the back yard of the brother of some con that wants to make a plea, is anybody going to believe that over the word of the police.