Will Amanda Knox win or lose her appeal?

[davefoc]

If she's not acquitted it's going to be a national embarrassment for Italy. Or maybe it won't be, as judging from the comments I've seen on the news stories, tons of people are CONVINCED that her contradictory statements to the police are absolute proof of guilt.

Coincidentally, most people who post comments on news stories appear to be bloodthirsty, idiotic lunatics. So hopefully they aren't the best sample of public opinion.

Anyway, if she's acquitted then the prosecutor should be fired. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.

So the prosecutor should keep his job if he can convict innocent people.

 

[lionking]

So the prosecutor should keep his job if he can convict innocent people.

No, no, get fired for doing his job.

 

[cambion]

So the prosecutor should keep his job if he can convict innocent people.

I didn't say anything about him losing his job. Read my post again.


But yeah, he SHOULD be fired no matter what. Poor wording on my part.

 

[Kopji]

Do you put a Ferrari or Lamborghini in jail? No, they are much too pretty.
So I say she'll be released.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, no, get fired for doing his job.

Well I guess if you believe that a prosecutor's job is to use emotion and personal attacks to get someone convictied no matter what the evidence says, then I'll have to agree that he is attempting to do his job.

 

[lionking]

Well I guess if you believe that a prosecutor's job is to use emotion and personal attacks to get someone convictied no matter what the evidence says, then I'll have to agree that he is attempting to do his job.

A prosecutor prosecutes, a judge judges. They did their job, whether you like the decision or not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A prosecutor prosecutes

Isn't a prosecutor supposed to prosecute based on fact and evidence? Surely that is what a justice system is supposed to be about? I'm not just talking this case, but any case. What place do personal attacks, logical falacies, and emotional outbursts have in the prosecution part of a trial?

a judge judges.

And one hopes that a good judge will see through the emotional claptrap and be able to examine the evidence and judge from that.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Well, it looks as if we will have our answer in approx. 5 hours or so.


If the evidence does not fit,
You have to ACQUIT !!!!

 

[Ryokan]

Face it, the cops decided Amanda (not Raffaele, Amanda) had murdered Meredith almost immediately.

To be fair, they first thought the guy Knox tried to frame was guilty.

 

[Rolfe]

To be fair, they first thought the guy Knox tried to frame was guilty.

I wouldn't say she "tried to frame" him. But otherwise that's true. They thought Patrick was involved for some reason, and Amanda's connection to Patrick may have been one more thing that convinced them they had the right people.

It's just a pity that when they finally realised Patrick wasn't involved and Rudy Guede definitely was, they didn't re-think their entire view of the case.

Rolfe.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

Whether you are a weird CT-er comes down to your reasoning, your behaviour and your sense of proportion. Not whether your conclusion is upheld - but how you came by it.

When someone tries to equate the situation of Dawit Isaak* (at the moment of writing it is unknown whether he is still alive or not and the Ethiopian government has stated outright that they will not even pretend to come up with an accusation, they simply plan to hold him until he dies for no other reason than writing journalism they weren't too keen on) and a sordid and contentious - ultimately quite mundane - criminal case. Well, that kind of speaks of a level of self importance and lack of proportion that is the hallmark of the CT mindset. No matter what the outcome.

I don't know what happened, I don't know how this will pan out and ultimately I don't give a crap. If you wonder about the "image" issue of the AK posters - nothing has changed. Whether AK is guilty or innocent - the way they have conducted themselves will not change. With friends like them, AK needs no enemies.

* Yes. This has been seriously argued.

 

[Paninaro]

Whether you are a weird CT-er comes down to your reasoning, your behaviour and your sense of proportion. Not whether your conclusion is upheld - but how you came by it.

When someone tries to equate the situation of Dawit Isaak* (at the moment of writing it is unknown whether he is still alive or not and the Ethiopian government has stated outright that they will not even pretend to come up with an accusation, they simply plan to hold him until he dies for no other reason than writing journalism they weren't too keen on) and a sordid and contentious - ultimately quite mundane - criminal case. Well, that kind of speaks of a level of self importance and lack of proportion that is the hallmark of the CT mindset. No matter what the outcome.

I don't know what happened, I don't know how this will pan out and ultimately I don't give a crap. If you wonder about the "image" issue of the AK posters - nothing has changed. Whether AK is guilty or innocent - the way they have conducted themselves will not change. With friends like them, AK needs no enemies.

* Yes. This has been seriously argued.

So in other words you are illinformed and don't interrested in the truth of the case, but you make a judgement anyway.

And how is this is a sceptical and rational view?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So in other words you are illinformed and don't interrested in the truth of the case, but you make a judgement anyway.

And how is this is a sceptical and rational view?

Did she make a judgement or are you helping make her point?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Did she make a judgement or are you helping make her point?

Looked like she made a judgement from what I can see.

 

[Checkmite]

I predict she will win.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I predict she will win.

Shouldn't that be postdict?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15158163

 

[slingblade]

So in other words you are illinformed and don't interrested in the truth of the case, but you make a judgement anyway.

And how is this is a sceptical and rational view?

The first step to learning anything is always "I don't know."

How is it not skeptical, or rational? Do you know? You were there, and you've known the complete truth all along? You're not saying that, surely. I must be misunderstanding you. Since you do not know the the complete truth of the matter, you must be ill-informed as well, correct?

 

[Checkmite]

No - I predicted it well ahead of time; the tremendous lag on the website kept it from being posted until afterward! I demand my million!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh man... I don't know much about the Amanda Knox case but her appeal is one thing I assure you she's not going to lose. She's too hot to be true.

There was at least one news comment that the fact there were women (or 'more' women) on this jury could have been the thing that resulted in her acquittal.

 

[Paninaro]

The first step to learning anything is always "I don't know."

How is it not skeptical, or rational? Do you know? You were there, and you've known the complete truth all along? You're not saying that, surely. I must be misunderstanding you. Since you do not know the the complete truth of the matter, you must be ill-informed as well, correct?

Yes, I am well-informed on this case, so I know it was a modern day witch trial, which is why it's interesting to a skeptics forum in the first place. I know to a high degree of certainty that Knox and Sollecito were innocent and I know with almost total certainty that they were innocent in the legal sense.

Isn't this the point of learning and rationality? That you study things to know more of them and from them?

Many "regular" posters of this great forum seemed to have taken up the position that the alleged bad behaviour of the Knox "fans" can tell you something about if this case has been an injustice or not. I find that a very strange and ill-logical way of forming an opinion.

Dawit Isaak is also a victim of injustice. But how do you know that this case doesn't equate to that situation if you don't make an ill-informed judgement on this case?