Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

What don't you understand about the fact that I can't access the search function?

I understand perfectly. And this convenient inability means you can't back up your claim. Consequently the honourable thing to do would be to withdraw it.

I see that's not you way.

 

[Alt+F4]

I understand perfectly. And this convenient inability means you can't back up your claim. Consequently the honourable thing to do would be to withdraw it.

I see that's not you way.

You sound like an Obama "birther".

 

[LondonJohn]

I understand perfectly. And this convenient inability means you can't back up your claim. Consequently the honourable thing to do would be to withdraw it.

I see that's not you way.

The search function works perfectly for me. How very curious that a remote web-based search function works on some people's computers and not on others'........

 

[LondonJohn]

The difference is that I would change my opinion if the evidence was there to support a change. What I find most interesting is that many posters here have stated that they will never change their belief in innocence no matter what. The end.

I have a feeling that Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher have both stated in the past that they are utterly convinced of Knox's (and Sollecito's) innocence, and that nothing will make them deviate from this position.

Now, two things need to be said here: firstly, both these people are close to the case, having extensive contact with Knox's family and other people intimately involved. This may mean they are privy to more than most of the rest of us bystanders, and/or it may mean that they themselves have formed an emotional investment in the case which has led to the somewhat illogical reasoning that nothing will ever make them believe that Knox/Sollecito should be found guilty. Secondly, IIRC nearly everyone else here who argues that Knox's/Sollecito's convictions are unsafe has gone so far as to STATE that if solid evidence of guilt were to be produced, they would change their view. I, of course, am one such person, and I could probably count up to a dozen others who feel the same way.

So how this has disingenuously morphed into the "many posters" of your assertion is hard to understand. Maybe it's projection of some sort. Maybe it's wishful thinking when confronted with an array of logical arguments. Who knows?

 

[LondonJohn]

You sound like an Obama "birther".

You probably don't want me to tell you what some of your arguments sound like...

 

[Matthew Best]

You sound like an Obama "birther".

Well, I'm not one. But also, I'm not the one making an accusation that I can't substantiate and refuse to withdraw - that would be you.

I really don't see what your problem is. This is what we sceptics do all the time - we don't make claims without evidence, and if we have no evidence we withdraw the claims until we can produce some. I don't see why you think you should be an exception to this general rule - perhaps you can explain?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

CoulsdonUK,

I have given links that show that Stefanoni's team did not follow guidelines with respect to how often gloves should be changed. I don't need a court to rule that they were sloppy; I can see it for myself.

If I may reply to this post, I would say if Grudy himself came out and confessed to the crime and claimed Amanda had nothing to do with it, even though I believe that he is a bigger lier than Amanda herself, I think I would believe this because, if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

 

[lionking]

I have a feeling that Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher have both stated in the past that they are utterly convinced of Knox's (and Sollecito's) innocence, and that nothing will make them deviate from this position.

My recollection is that Justinian said something very similar

 

[Matthew Best]

I wonder if the search function is broken for you, too?

 

[LondonJohn]

If I may reply to this post, I would say if Grudy himself came out and confessed to the crime and claimed Amanda had nothing to do with it, even though I believe that he is a bigger lier than Amanda herself, I think I would believe this because, if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

Problem is, there's absolutely zero incentive for him to tell the truth now, if indeed he acted alone - and in fact there's a feasible incentive for him to stick to his story. It's easy to see that, despite his trial being over, he thinks he may be slightly better regarded as the "least culpable" of a gang of three which included Knox and Sollecito: he can still finesse in his own mind (and to other inmates/guards/friends(?)) that he was caught up in something that he'd never intended. However, if indeed he was there on his own, he has nowhere to hide, and nobody to hide behind.

I don't think we'll ever hear the truth out of Guede's mouth. He implicated Knox and Sollecito because it was clearly expedient for him to do so (and he knew they were in custody and the "case was closed" by the time he himself was arrested). By the same logic, he won't now come out and say that this was all a lie and that they weren't there.

So, in conclusion, I think it's not correct to say that if Guede were the sole assailant, he would now come out and admit that. Similarly, I think it's incorrect to infer that if Guede doesn't come out with a "sole assailant" confession now, this in any way means that Knox and/or Sollecito (or anyone else, for that matter) were in any way involved.

 

[Chris C]

If I may reply to this post, I would say if Grudy himself came out and confessed to the crime and claimed Amanda had nothing to do with it, even though I believe that he is a bigger lier than Amanda herself, I think I would believe this because, if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

Why would he do that? If knox and sollecito convictions get overturned he has grounds for an appeal of his own conviction. His co-conspirators would be found innocent. If he admits to being the killer he also opens himself up to slander against knox/sollecito both. Thus giving the government grounds to charge him with criminal slander and increase his sentence. If Rudy was to admit to being the lonewolf he would get his sentence increased through other charges. Were as if he says nothing he gets out in a few years regardless of whether knox and sollecito are found innocent or guilty. Why would you think someone that murdered and possibly raped someone while they were bleeding to death would suddenly develop feelings and have a conscious.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Problem is, there's absolutely zero incentive for him to tell the truth now, if indeed he acted alone - and in fact there's a feasible incentive for him to stick to his story. It's easy to see that, despite his trial being over, he thinks he may be slightly better regarded as the "least culpable" of a gang of three which included Knox and Sollecito: he can still finesse in his own mind (and to other inmates/guards/friends(?)) that he was caught up in something that he'd never intended. However, if indeed he was there on his own, he has nowhere to hide, and nobody to hide behind.

I don't think we'll ever hear the truth out of Guede's mouth. He implicated Knox and Sollecito because it was clearly expedient for him to do so (and he knew they were in custody and the "case was closed" by the time he himself was arrested). By the same logic, he won't now come out and say that this was all a lie and that they weren't there.

So, in conclusion, I think it's not correct to say that if Guede were the sole assailant, he would now come out and admit that. Similarly, I think it's incorrect to infer that if Guede doesn't come out with a "sole assailant" confession now, this in any way means that Knox and/or Sollecito (or anyone else, for that matter) were in any way involved.

Actually, that is the only thing a Foaker can say about this, but in reality, he has a lot to gain by telling the truth if that were the truth, parole boards do not frown on the truth, what reason could he possibly have for having two innocent people convicted of a crime they didn't commit - sure he had something to gain while his trial and appeals were going on, but not now that it's over. He won't get his sentence increased, people will not think less of him than they already do and again, it will not hurt any parole hearings he has in the future.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why would he do that? If knox and sollecito convictions get overturned he has grounds for an appeal of his own conviction. His co-conspirators would be found innocent. If he admits to being the killer he also opens himself up to slander against knox/sollecito both. Thus giving the government grounds to charge him with criminal slander and increase his sentence. If Rudy was to admit to being the lonewolf he would get his sentence increased through other charges. Were as if he says nothing he gets out in a few years regardless of whether knox and sollecito are found innocent or guilty. Why would you think someone that murdered and possibly raped someone while they were bleeding to death would suddenly develop feelings and have a conscious.

Again, I do not agree with any of this, but again, I also realize Foakers can not say anything else so I am not surprised - The question though was what it would take for me to change my mind of guilt.

 

[Antony]

If I may reply to this post, I would say if Grudy himself came out and confessed to the crime and claimed Amanda had nothing to do with it,

What about the fact that Guede said exactly this - that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were involved - when first arrested, and only changed his story after the police spoke to him?

even though I believe that he is a bigger lier than Amanda herself,

Amanda is not a liar at all.

I think I would believe this because, if she really had nothing to do with it, he would have said so, especially now that his trials are over.

Well, of course a guilter cannot say anything else.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, that is the only thing a Foaker can say about this, but in reality, he has a lot to gain by telling the truth if that were the truth, parole boards do not frown on the truth, what reason could he possibly have for having two innocent people convicted of a crime they didn't commit - sure he had something to gain while his trial and appeals were going on, but not now that it's over. He won't get his sentence increased, people will not think less of him than they already do and again, it will not hurt any parole hearings he has in the future.

I disagree. If I were him, I'd consider that people would think less of me if I suddenly admitted that I'd lied about Knox's and Sollecito's involvement to try to save my own skin. And his behaviour and actions before/during his trials tends to reflect this further: he was constantly trying to finesse the issue, never flat-out denying he was there, but trying to minimise his culpability.

Oh, and I don't consider myself a "Foaker". Any more than you would consider yourself a "Cont". Please don't use that term aimed towards me.

 

[LondonJohn]

What about the fact that Guede said exactly this - that neither Amanda nor Raffaele were involved - when first arrested, and only changed his story after the police spoke to him?

Agreed. Plus, there's a fundamental problem with Guede's position here. His first statements to the police mentioned shadowy figures running past him, with all the "Balack man found, black man guilty" stuff. Then, when he realised that Knox and Sollecito were in custody with an apparent "mountain" of evidence against them, he found it prudent to modify this story to make the man Sollecito. With Knox, though, he had more of a problem. He undoubtedly knew Knox by sight, and had exchanged pleasantries with her on a couple of occasions. He therefore had no proper reason why he couldn't/shouldn't have been able to identify her from the very beginning.

In the end, of course, his trials found that he was far more involved in the murder than he had admitted to - based chiefly on forensic evidence (which was far, far stronger than that against Knox and Sollecito). If that was the case, then there's even less reason why he shouldn't have been able to name Knox and Sollecito as accomplices right from the very beginning, if that was his strategy.

I believe the truth is that Guede acted entirely alone, but that he seized on the opportunity to try to blame Knox and Sollecito when that window of opportunity opened wide for him, courtesy of the "crack" Perugia police and prosecutors.

 

[Chris C]

Again, I do not agree with any of this, but again, I also realize Foakers can not say anything else so I am not surprised - The question though was what it would take for me to change my mind of guilt.

So basicly the only thing that would change your mind is Rudy admitting to being the lonewolf.
Wow thats pretty hardcore. So none of the things i'm fixing to list below would change your mind?

What if one of the police admitted that one of the other interrogators did strike Knox?
What if the dna files are looked at and there is no lcn dna found on the knife by Stefanoni?
What about Rudy just admitting that the print on the bathmat is his?
How about a 2nd opinion on the autopsy that would place the ToD around 9:30 or earlier?
How about Filomena admitting that her room was a mess when she left?


I agree a confession from Knox would change my mind. I would also change my mind if they would actually present some evidence. The problem is the prosecutions case is built on lies. So how can a person honestly believe the prosecution when they no longer have any evidence that ties Knox or Sollecito to the room in which Meredith was murdered.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

credibility

I have a feeling that Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher have both stated in the past that they are utterly convinced of Knox's (and Sollecito's) innocence, and that nothing will make them deviate from this position.

Now, two things need to be said here: firstly, both these people are close to the case, having extensive contact with Knox's family and other people intimately involved. This may mean they are privy to more than most of the rest of us bystanders, and/or it may mean that they themselves have formed an emotional investment in the case which has led to the somewhat illogical reasoning that nothing will ever make them believe that Knox/Sollecito should be found guilty.

LondonJohn,

With due respect, I don't believe that you are representing their positions entirely accuracy. I seem to recall Charlie's saying that he was 100% convinced of innocence. That is not the same thing as saying that no evidence could change his mind, IMO. Of course any new evidence would have to be credible, and the investigators in this case have trod their own credibility into the dirt.

 

[Justinian2]

So you don't think accusations made in a criminal matter need a source? "?

I was talking about calculated results. If you know the subject, you know the answer.

If were're talking about the accusations against Amanda, we know the source. It's just that the calculations Magnini made are either insane or he is hiding something. He's said to be shrewd like a fox. Other judges have also said he's a criminal.

No, it's not. So now criminal accusations are "stuff"?

Most of the people here - and those that have read a book on the subject - know the stuff that Waterbury uses as the 'dots' around which he builds his theory. His theory is 'compatible' with the well known 'dots'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

LondonJohn,

With due respect, I don't believe that you are representing their positions entirely accuracy. I seem to recall Charlie's saying that he was 100% convinced of innocence. That is not the same thing as saying that no evidence could change his mind, IMO. Of course any new evidence would have to be credible, and the investigators in this case have trod their own credibility into the dirt.

If we're being strict about it, then saying that you have P=1 belief in innocence is mathematically equivalent to saying that no amount of evidence will ever make you change your mind, just as P=0 is mathematically equivalent to saying no amount of evidence will ever make you think they are innocent. That's one of the consequences of the proof of Bayes' Theorem.

However I don't think it's rational to hold laypeople speaking informally to that level of statistical sophistication. Heaven help the guilters if we did...