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

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
Of course people's opinions can and should be challenged. What I'm talking about is when someone is posting about something unrelated to the time of death and sequence of events which precede it, they are regularly asked "oh yeah, where's your timeline pal" and similar. Unnecessary and, as I said, somewhat bullying.
Click to expand...

That's fair LK. However, if you never address the logical flaws involved in putting Amanda and Raffaele at the cottage at the time of death you aren't really willing to be accountable and challenged.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly, Major Major. Remember what every one said about them missing an impromptu memorial?
Click to expand...

As I recall, it was Major Major Major Major and his thing was never to admit anyone to see him in his office unless he had gone out. His sergeant was under strict instructions not to let anyone in to see him unless he was out. He told visitors to come back later when the Major was in. Is your point that whatever they do they are wrong? Caring too much, caring too little etc. Like Major Major Major Major's visitors?
 
acbytesla said:
That's fair LK. However, if you never address the logical flaws involved in putting Amanda and Raffaele at the cottage at the time of death you aren't really willing to be accountable and challenged.
Click to expand...

Fair or not it's still stupid. If I go on a science thread here I do not post conclusions because, mostly, I don't have any. I post questions in order to learn. Pro-guilt posters here are going much further than that. They are purporting to have assessed the case properly and reached a conclusion of guilt. Like it or not that opens them to challenges. It is perfectly reasonable to ask them how they square X with Y. To call that 'bullying' is just weird.
 
anglolawyer said:
Fair or not it's still stupid. If I go on a science thread here I do not post conclusions because, mostly, I don't have any. I post questions in order to learn. Pro-guilt posters here are going much further than that. They are purporting to have assessed the case properly and reached a conclusion of guilt. Like it or not that opens them to challenges. It is perfectly reasonable to ask them how they square X with Y. To call that 'bullying' is just weird.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.

Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
 
lionking said:
Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.

Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
Click to expand...

Lionking - I welcome debate here. The last thing I want is everybody agreeing. Please address my point if you wouldn't mind: if someone shows up professing a belief in guilt then it is reasonable to expect them to be able to deal with the problems in the pro-guilt position. What is your problem with that? Why do you characterise that as bullying? Would you apply the same standard to a science thread?
 
lionking said:
Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.

Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
Click to expand...
Actually they don't seem to want an echo chamber, but hammer the timeline because it's really the monty python paradox, things were so tough we got up to go to work before we went to bed.
Many believe/are sure Meredith was dead when Raffaele was opening a computer cartoon in his pleasant apartment. And for that he gets 25 years and a hate campaign.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.

Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
Click to expand...

How would you feel about somebody arguing about Spontaneous Human Combustion only arguing from eye witness testimony and unwilling to even consider the Wick Effect?
 
anglolawyer said:
Fair or not it's still stupid. If I go on a science thread here I do not post conclusions because, mostly, I don't have any. I post questions in order to learn. Pro-guilt posters here are going much further than that. They are purporting to have assessed the case properly and reached a conclusion of guilt. Like it or not that opens them to challenges. It is perfectly reasonable to ask them how they square X with Y. To call that 'bullying' is just weird.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that anglo is that you will never get any where calling anyone stupid. Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER ONE. And calling their argument stupid is Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER TWO.

I'm in favor or pointing out that NO ONE has come forward with a logical time frame that accounts for the evidence. I'm even in favor of calling Machiavelli's arguments stupid. (I'll never win him over anyway)

That said I refrain from actually posting that term. I can see how some people might say that is bullying. But this is coming from a salesman Anglo, not a lawyer. I can see how in your profession, you might get use to demolishing people.
 
acbytesla said:
The only problem with that anglo is that you will never get any where calling anyone stupid. Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER ONE. And calling their argument stupid is Dale Carnegie's RULE NUMBER TWO.

I'm in favor or pointing out that NO ONE has come forward with a logical time frame that accounts for the evidence. I'm even in favor of calling Machiavelli's arguments stupid. (I'll never win him over anyway)

That said I refrain from actually posting that term. I can see how some people might say that is bullying. But this is coming from a salesman Anglo, not a lawyer. I can see how in your profession, you might get use to demolishing people.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to win friends and influence people nor am I selling anything. This thread is for debate and discussion and, over and above the MA it is, or ought to be, governed by reason. It's not worth sticking around otherwise. It's a privilege to exchange views here but there's a price. If you stick your neck out, be ready to have it chopped off. We are all the better for being shown to be wrong from time to time.
 
Desert Fox said:
How would you feel about somebody arguing about Spontaneous Human Combustion only arguing from eye witness testimony and unwilling to even consider the Wick Effect?
Click to expand...

I would think that person very ill-informed. I wouldn't ask, time after time, "tell me about the wick effect...come on, come on...wick effect, wick effect, timeline, timeline....".
 
lionking said:
I would think that person very ill-informed. I wouldn't ask, time after time, "tell me about the wick effect...come on, come on...wick effect, wick effect, timeline, timeline....".
Click to expand...

Each of us argue in our own way. . . .
The problem though is that some of the people who are pro guilt seem argue that if Amanda had a receipt for 7-11 in Seattle at the time of the murder, if her story has any holes than she is guilty of the Murder of Meredeth.

Granted she was not in Seattle. Still, there is no reasonable physical evidence that fits Amanda being involved as well as her having a reasonable alibi for the most probable time of the murder. Those really need to be explained before we start arguing about her story being sketchy.
 
lionking said:
I would think that person very ill-informed. I wouldn't ask, time after time, "tell me about the wick effect...come on, come on...wick effect, wick effect, timeline, timeline....".
Click to expand...

The timeline is for the court to come up with and we will see in the motivations report.

I don't have a clue about the timeline... I'm not an expert on digestion etc. That doesn't negate the fact that so many other factors lead me to believe AK&RS are guilty.

-----------

I finally saw the NBC/BBC documentary. Very good. I was particularly struck by Sarah Gino's idiotic arguments (not even SHE believed what she was saying), the luminal footprints, Amanda Knox in the surveillance cam all showered and blow-dried (yeah, right), the devastating comments by the DNA expert about RS and the bra-clasp, Ms. Knox's statements in the prison recording,... and on and on.

Of course they're guilty.

But do I have a timeline for the murder? No. We'll see what those who were actually in court and have studied the case (in a way that no one here possibly could) have to say.
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
But do I have a timeline for the murder? No. We'll see what those who were actually in court and have studied the case (in a way that no one here possibly could) have to say.
Click to expand...

Anybody want to take bets that both their motivation and timeline will make no sense?
 
Vibio said:
The timeline is for the court to come up with and we will see in the motivations report.

I don't have a clue about the timeline... I'm not an expert on digestion etc. That doesn't negate the fact that so many other factors lead me to believe AK&RS are guilty.

-----------

I finally saw the NBC/BBC documentary. Very good. I was particularly struck by Sarah Gino's idiotic arguments (not even SHE believed what she was saying), the luminal footprints, Amanda Knox in the surveillance cam all showered and blow-dried (yeah, right), Ms. Knox's statements in the prison recording,... and on and on.

Of course they're guilty.

But do I have a timeline for the murder? No. We'll see what those who were actually in court and have studied the case (in a way that no one here possibly could) have to say.
Click to expand...
Nor me nor most here, but the important point is you don't need to be. Others are, and there are many links that show she could not be alive much after she got home. She was already a statistical anomaly at 9 04. So it becomes more sensible to see real break in and dna contamination/planting to maintain a rational world view. Sherlock Holmes would not need to light a pipe to solve this one.
 
In order to stop an echo chamber...

-

lionking said:
Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.

Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
Click to expand...
-

Although I sympathize with what you're saying, the problem isn't that it's an echo chamber, but rather that there's no good guilt echo (evidence) coming in to really reverse the innocence echo (evidence) chamber that's in full swing here.

A timeline is as good a place as any to start putting out that reverse echo that will stop this innocence echo chamber from being as much in control of this thread as it obviously is now,

d

-
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
I am not trying to win friends and influence people nor am I selling anything. This thread is for debate and discussion and, over and above the MA it is, or ought to be, governed by reason. It's not worth sticking around otherwise. It's a privilege to exchange views here but there's a price. If you stick your neck out, be ready to have it chopped off. We are all the better for being shown to be wrong from time to time.
Click to expand...

I love you man. I always wanted to be a lawyer. I just couldn't afford to go to law school. I probably do this because I miss the challenges that debate gave me in high school and college. I also admit to a certain glee of being able to to metaphorically chop people's neck as well.

But I admit Anglo, I became a salesman and a lot of the skills are the same as debate. But there is a distinction. Winning a debate with a customer never helped me close a sale. In fact, I'm sure it cost me a few. To me, this is about persuasion. Not about debate. Can I persuade someone to change their minds. I think it might be possible with someone like Lion King.

But I could be wrong.
 
anglolawyer said:
Fair or not it's still stupid. If I go on a science thread here I do not post conclusions because, mostly, I don't have any. I post questions in order to learn. Pro-guilt posters here are going much further than that. They are purporting to have assessed the case properly and reached a conclusion of guilt. Like it or not that opens them to challenges. It is perfectly reasonable to ask them how they square X with Y. To call that 'bullying' is just weird.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Whatever. I posted an opinion I still hold - that people can contribute to this thread without posting a timeline.
Sometimes I think some prefer this thread to be an echo chamber......
Click to expand...

But why not post a timeline? My opinion is that it cannot be done from a guilt perspective... well, all except for the one where Rudy Guede alone is guilty.

The burglarly is doable, even Judge Massei admits that. What I disagree with Massei about is that the impossible conditions he puts on to Rudy do not exist, namely that he would not have gone up and down three times. The Channel 5 demonstration shows he can open the shutters quite easily... etc.

There is no burglary in Filomena's room, because it is a room of transit, in the dark. Taking three or four quick steps as he goes through Filomena's room is not going to leave a forensic trace.

Why not provide a timeline.... oh I see, it's you opinion you don't need one. Ok, you're allowed an opinion.

Except you define it as "bullying" to be asked for one.
 
Vibio said:
The timeline is for the court to come up with and we will see in the motivations report.

I don't have a clue about the timeline... I'm not an expert on digestion etc. That doesn't negate the fact that so many other factors lead me to believe AK&RS are guilty.

-----------

I finally saw the NBC/BBC documentary. Very good. I was particularly struck by Sarah Gino's idiotic arguments (not even SHE believed what she was saying), the luminal footprints, Amanda Knox in the surveillance cam all showered and blow-dried (yeah, right), the devastating comments by the DNA expert about RS and the bra-clasp, Ms. Knox's statements in the prison recording,... and on and on.
Of course they're guilty.

But do I have a timeline for the murder? No. We'll see what those who were actually in court and have studied the case (in a way that no one here possibly could) have to say.
Click to expand...

Did you hear the subsequent BBC4 comments about how the DNA evidence as presented by Stefanoni at the first trial was wrong? Di you appreciate that the audiorecording of Ms. Knox saying that she'd been shown an incoming SMS message from Lumumba, actually verifies her story that it was the police who brought Lumumba's name into the room? This means that she "spontaneously" admitted to nothing.

This also means she is innocent of calunnia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom