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

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
Why do so many people want the Kercher family silenced, or to only comment in a manner which suits the innocent side, yet give AK and her family free rein?

Both sides have the right to their opinion and a right to voice it.

Live with the Kerchers' comments or ignore them. Yelling "no fair" is pointless and somewhat childish in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Who is yelling, "no fair"?

This is a complete strawman argument. No one, victims included, have the right to misrepresent facts.

At least misrepresent them without correction.

What are you on about? It is arguments like yours which drove me solidly into the innocence camp. Can guilters make anything other than sttawman arguments?
 
It really is shockingly awful - and now they seem to almost be praising Guede

And now onto mixed blood
 
Last edited:
NancyS said:
Well the BBC3 programme is already dreadful - they've firstly claimed that Amanda was different to Meredith due to her attitudes to hygiene, money and sex - and they've now also claimed that Raffaele called the police after the postal police arrived - and now that the rock was too big to go through the windows - and now onto two knifes - and now onto too many wounds and even showing the cartoon.

And according to Comodi, not even Superman could have attacked Meredith due to her karate background
Click to expand...

The rock being too big to go through the windows is new. I wonder where they got that gem of misinformation?
 
lionking said:
Why do so many people want the Kercher family silenced, or to only comment in a manner which suits the innocent side, yet give AK and her family free rein?

Both sides have the right to their opinion and a right to voice it.

Live with the Kerchers' comments or ignore them. Yelling "no fair" is pointless and somewhat childish in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have always laughed at that idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean their opinion is the least bit credible. That the opinion isn't filled with obfuscation and hyperbole.

People who have the opinion that the sun revolves around the moon or the earth is flat are entitled to it. That doesn't mean it isn't foolish and stupid.

Those that are willing to express an opinion that asserts fiction as fact need to be shouted down and portrayed for their ignorance.

While I feel for the Kercher's loss, that doesn't mean they are entitled to lie and misrepresent the facts. They are not allowed to be publicly hypocritical.

Their grief isn't a license to destroy other human beings.
 
lionking said:
Why do so many people want the Kercher family silenced, or to only comment in a manner which suits the innocent side, yet give AK and her family free rein?

Both sides have the right to their opinion and a right to voice it.

Live with the Kerchers' comments or ignore them. Yelling "no fair" is pointless and somewhat childish in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it more that people were pointing out that the "dignified silence" label that certain pro-guilt commentators like to apply to the Kercher family is rather at odds with the truth?

In addition, shouldn't the focus in the case be between the Italian State (the accusers) and Knox and Sollecito (the accused)? And I think that anyone would have a fair amount of trouble (intellectually and morally) trying to argue that someone accused of murder should not be able to defend themselves against that accusation as vociferously as they want to. And I'd argue that to a degree that also applies to an accused person's close family and friends.

Personally, I think the Kerchers have as much right as anyone to speak out. However, I do feel that they need to realise that their opinions carry a particular emotional weight - a weight which may be detrimental to the fair application of justice. In particular, I think that John Kercher's book went, in parts, far beyond what should have been said by a victim's father.

There are plenty of examples throughout the history of criminal justice where the families of murder victims have developed fixations on a particular person as the culprit, but where that person has turned out to be innocent. Most modern systems of jurisprudence therefore recognise that it's not appropriate for victims or their families to be part of any prosecution.
 
And a DNA expert that apparently was asked for by the Italian authorities, but isn't the Independent experts - and claims the bra evidence is very strong

It really is shocking - think I might write my first ever complaint letter
 
Well this doc is pretty bad. That said, even if it was completely accurate, this ain't winning any awards. Pretty cheap production.
 
You know, watching this risible "documentary" truly brings to mind a viewing of that 911 conspiracy documentary "Loose Change". At virtually every turn, facts are either misstated, misrepresented or wholly invented, and a ludicrously partisan pro-guilt spin is being put on every single aspect.

Any rational, sceptical person who's ever watched "Loose Change" will remember having gasped at every distortion and misrepresentation, and will have become frustrated to the point of almost calling out repeatedly "No! That's wrong! That's a warped, misleading point, that has been invented and distorted to fit the desired prior thesis of government conspiracy!" I promise you, watching this BBC Three documentary is exactly a similar experience (just substitute "Knox's guilt" for "government conspiracy".

And just as some weak-minded, malleable people will have watched "Loose Change" and will have thought: "Wow! So that's what happened! I'm convinced! It all looks and sounds entirely convincing!", so I'm sure that some will react to this BBC Three Knox programme in the same way. Fortunately, none of those people matter in the bigger picture.
 
LondonJohn said:
You know, watching this risible "documentary" truly brings to mind a viewing of that 911 conspiracy documentary "Loose Change". At virtually every turn, facts are either misstated, misrepresented or wholly invented, and a ludicrously partisan pro-guilt spin is being put on every single aspect.

Any rational, sceptical person who's ever watched "Loose Change" will remember having gasped at every distortion and misrepresentation, and will have become frustrated to the point of almost calling out repeatedly "No! That's wrong! That's a warped, misleading point, that has been invented and distorted to fit the desired prior thesis of government conspiracy!" I promise you, watching this BBC Three documentary is exactly a similar experience (just substitute "Knox's guilt" for "government conspiracy".

And just as some weak-minded, malleable people will have watched "Loose Change" and will have thought: "Wow! So that's what happened! I'm convinced! It all looks and sounds entirely convincing!", so I'm sure that some will react to this BBC Three Knox programme in the same way. Fortunately, none of those people matter in the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

It also reminds me of the Dewani panorama programme, although it is much much worse.

At the moment they are just making out that the successful appeal was on a technicality. They haven't even mentioned that the SC found that they did not do it.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
NancyS,

Who is the DNA "expert?"
Click to expand...


Oh it was Balding.

Of course, they didn't point out that his frame of reference was very narrow, and that he was merely given the graphs and asked whether, statistically, there was a high probability that Sollecito's DNA was on the clasp. And yes, his profile can be found on the clasp.

But Balding is not a DNA biologist, and nor is he a forensic scientist. He is utterly unqualified to give an expert opinion on the clasp in a wider context - most specifically in regard to contamination.

Another (yet another) example of intellectual dishonesty by this programme in the way they presented and qualified (failed to qualify) Balding's testimony.
 
And now they've just said 'Rudy is Innocent and didn't handle the knife' - it's really quite sick that the man whose DNA was in Meredith Kercher's vagina is so well supported by the prosecution
 
HumanityBlues said:
Well this doc is pretty bad. That said, even if it was completely accurate, this ain't winning any awards. Pretty cheap production.
Click to expand...


It's another award-winning piece of BBC Three investigative journalism :D

Right up there with "The Truth About Webcam Girls" (BBC Three, this Wednesday at 10pm) :D
 
Just when you thought it could be no worse

NancyS said:
And now they've just said 'Rudy is Innocent and didn't handle the knife' - it's really quite sick that the man whose DNA was in Meredith Kercher's vagina is so well supported by the prosecution
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow!
 
Just as well the BBC 3 programme didn’t take place during the Florence appeal, like the channel 5 programme!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom