Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer?
View Poll Results: Is Amanda Knox innocent or guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher in Perugia Italy?
There is reasonable doubt here and should be found not guilty.
381
26.87%
She is guilty as can be and should be found guilty.
551
38.86%
She is completely innocent and should be acquitted.
168
11.85%
Undecided
318
22.43%
I shouldn't call you or anyone a moron regardless, so apologies on my end.
This thread is probably not for you. Go back to posting about whether you should have Chipotle or Chik-fil-A for lunch.
The format can definitely be frustrating as the topic seems to veer in many directions at once and then gets sidetracked further by debates over "red herrings." Ad hominems are a near certainty at some point.
Anyway, it's not like anything new has come up. The guilty side has laid out a compelling case and the shills are just biding time until the appeal is ruled upon. In the off-chance it is denied, then they have the jump on the "I told you so's" - its just a freeroll like the last appeal which was granted in Knox's favor completely from out on left field.
Indeed, shills like 239 can only say the appeal was granted in Knox's favor but they cannot really explain just how that came about. As witnessed in this thread at least, every point relied upon by Hellman breaks down when subjected to proper discussion.
From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:
If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99
This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.
That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true
shouldnt you? I just wanted to see what it was all about but its like nancy grace up in here
Lol
The leader lolHenry has already spoken and has stated Nancy Grace said Knox is guilty....so it MUST be true!
From my perspective, threads with "big walls of text" usually are quite interesting. If you are not scared of reading posts longer than three words and a thumbs up, then I think this thread has a lot to offer.
I am not sure what you mean about it being completely out of left field.
From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:
If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99
This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.
That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true
From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:
If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99
This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.
That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true
The appeal was not based on those types of errors discussed in the article, by the way. This is why I say it "came out of left field."
The underpinnings of the case stay the same nevertheless (from what is a strong case for guilt) - Hellman basically took the same facts and decided to exclude some from his reasoning as well as de-emphasize others, such that he could substitute his own reasoning into the case.
Yet, a serious discussion of how this was done quickly reveals that Hellman just pulled the whole thing out of his butt, and this is why pro-Knox people are not having any more success convincing people that Amanda did not participate in the murder.
Carry on
So, why the hell would I want to waste my time convincing you to read/participate in this thread?
I would also suggest your insincere, snide question about how could we possibly care so much about this topic is not particularly endearing to those (like me) participating in this thread.
So, carry on indeed! Chipotle or Chik-Fil-A, brah?
ohh please, you've gotta be kidding.
You believe this ****. You and your nutty friends like ergon and the few remaining die hard guilters left on the hate sites which are round the clock cyber stalking people still to this day.
You fell for a tabloid hoax and can't admitt being wrong.
You believe this ****. You and your nutty friends like ergon and the few remaining die hard guilters left on the hate sites which are round the clock cyber stalking people still to this day.
You fell for a tabloid hoax and can't admitt being wrong.
Both guilt and innocent of near certainty are reasonable perspectives on this case. This is one of the reasons the case is so interesting. I think intelligent impartial people can come to either conclusion after deeply examining the evidence. So I am asking 239 if he knows of such a person, so I can read his/her arguments and potentially find them compelling and change my mind. Crickets so far.
As an example, a person who believed the following would probably think she is innocent:
1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room
If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.
So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.
One of the problems I have in taking either of you seriously is that you simply cannot understand how anyone can hold a guilty view after deeply evaluating the evidence. This reflects terribly on your mental agility and emotional detachment.
Both guilt and innocent of near certainty are reasonable perspectives on this case. This is one of the reasons the case is so interesting. I think intelligent impartial people can come to either conclusion after deeply examining the evidence. So I am asking 239 if he knows of such a person, so I can read his/her arguments and potentially find them compelling and change my mind. Crickets so far.
As an example, a person who believed the following would probably think she is innocent:
1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room
If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.
So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.
Both guilt and innocent of near certainty are reasonable perspectives on this case. This is one of the reasons the case is so interesting. I think intelligent impartial people can come to either conclusion after deeply examining the evidence. So I am asking 239 if he knows of such a person, so I can read his/her arguments and potentially find them compelling and change my mind. Crickets so far.
As an example, a person who believed the following would probably think she is innocent:
1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room
If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.
So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.
Is this the new shill meme or something? You guys have been pushing this for pages and pages rather than engaging with anything meaningful. Your last meme was amusing as well. Many theories have been posted and put forward at trial; you find them unconvincing, as you would if you are certain of Knox innocence (which you've said you are). Why would you want more posted?
And a full timeline? When she was last seen at 9pm and wasn't found until 1pm the next day? Are you ****ing kidding? The best anyone can do is 1-2 hour ranges, and even those are guesses.
We have evidence, lots of it, and consequently need to explain it somehow. Evidence doesn't get there by Dids having a shower. Something has to happen for it to be present.
Many theories of the crime involving Knox or Sollecito have been posted that fit with and perfectly explain the evidence. In fact, they are required to explain the evidence. How exactly the murder went down, what precipitated it, when precisely it occurred, is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, no theory of Rudy doing it alone has been proposed that fits with the evidence. If you think he did it alone - despite the evidence:
- a knife with the victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment
- The dead girl's bra clasp with ample Sollecito DNA on it
- Knox footprints with DNA
- A lone bloody footprint in the bathroom matching Sollecito with nothing leading to or from it.
- Very odd behavior, partial confessions, contradictions, changing of stories, implausibly poor memories, falsely accusing an innocent man
- Telling the police that Meredith always locked her door, when she never did
- A broken window with zero glass on the ground outside and no disturbances to the glass on the sill, despite the need from the high window to pull oneself clumsily through
- A pattern of wounds and a bizarre lack of normal defensive wounds, consistent with multiple attackers and very unusual with one attacker
- Multiple witnesses that contradict Knox's story
Then please come up with a compelling theory to explain that in terms of Rudy only guilt, or link me to someone intelligent who has.
Any theory of Knox and Sollecito guilt can explain all of that perfectly (whatever the particulars of how and why the murder progressed, which are pure guesswork). How does a theory of Rudy alone explain the evidence?
And a full timeline? When she was last seen at 9pm and wasn't found until 1pm the next day? Are you ****ing kidding? The best anyone can do is 1-2 hour ranges, and even those are guesses.
We have evidence, lots of it, and consequently need to explain it somehow. Evidence doesn't get there by Dids having a shower. Something has to happen for it to be present.
Many theories of the crime involving Knox or Sollecito have been posted that fit with and perfectly explain the evidence. In fact, they are required to explain the evidence. How exactly the murder went down, what precipitated it, when precisely it occurred, is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, no theory of Rudy doing it alone has been proposed that fits with the evidence. If you think he did it alone - despite the evidence:
- a knife with the victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment
- The dead girl's bra clasp with ample Sollecito DNA on it
- Knox footprints with DNA
- A lone bloody footprint in the bathroom matching Sollecito with nothing leading to or from it.
- Very odd behavior, partial confessions, contradictions, changing of stories, implausibly poor memories, falsely accusing an innocent man
- Telling the police that Meredith always locked her door, when she never did
- A broken window with zero glass on the ground outside and no disturbances to the glass on the sill, despite the need from the high window to pull oneself clumsily through
- A pattern of wounds and a bizarre lack of normal defensive wounds, consistent with multiple attackers and very unusual with one attacker
- Multiple witnesses that contradict Knox's story
Then please come up with a compelling theory to explain that in terms of Rudy only guilt, or link me to someone intelligent who has.
Any theory of Knox and Sollecito guilt can explain all of that perfectly (whatever the particulars of how and why the murder progressed, which are pure guesswork). How does a theory of Rudy alone explain the evidence?
Is this the new shill meme or something? You guys have been pushing this for pages and pages rather than engaging with anything meaningful. Your last meme was amusing as well. Many theories have been posted and put forward at trial; you find them unconvincing, as you would if you are certain of Knox innocence (which you've said you are). Why would you want more posted?
And a full timeline? When she was last seen at 9pm and wasn't found until 1pm the next day? Are you ****ing kidding? The best anyone can do is 1-2 hour ranges, and even those are guesses.
We have evidence, lots of it, and consequently need to explain it somehow. Evidence doesn't get there by Dids having a shower. Something has to happen for it to be present.
Many theories of the crime involving Knox or Sollecito have been posted that fit with and perfectly explain the evidence. In fact, they are required to explain the evidence. How exactly the murder went down, what precipitated it, when precisely it occurred, is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, no theory of Rudy doing it alone has been proposed that fits with the evidence. If you think he did it alone - despite the evidence:
- a knife with the victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment
- The dead girl's bra clasp with ample Sollecito DNA on it
- Knox footprints with DNA
- A lone bloody footprint in the bathroom matching Sollecito with nothing leading to or from it.
- Very odd behavior, partial confessions, contradictions, changing of stories, implausibly poor memories, falsely accusing an innocent man
- Telling the police that Meredith always locked her door, when she never did
- A broken window with zero glass on the ground outside and no disturbances to the glass on the sill, despite the need from the high window to pull oneself clumsily through
- A pattern of wounds and a bizarre lack of normal defensive wounds, consistent with multiple attackers and very unusual with one attacker
- Multiple witnesses that contradict Knox's story
Then please come up with a compelling theory to explain that in terms of Rudy only guilt, or link me to someone intelligent who has.
Any theory of Knox and Sollecito guilt can explain all of that perfectly (whatever the particulars of how and why the murder progressed, which are pure guesswork). How does a theory of Rudy alone explain the evidence?
And a full timeline? When she was last seen at 9pm and wasn't found until 1pm the next day? Are you ****ing kidding? The best anyone can do is 1-2 hour ranges, and even those are guesses.
We have evidence, lots of it, and consequently need to explain it somehow. Evidence doesn't get there by Dids having a shower. Something has to happen for it to be present.
Many theories of the crime involving Knox or Sollecito have been posted that fit with and perfectly explain the evidence. In fact, they are required to explain the evidence. How exactly the murder went down, what precipitated it, when precisely it occurred, is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, no theory of Rudy doing it alone has been proposed that fits with the evidence. If you think he did it alone - despite the evidence:
- a knife with the victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment
- The dead girl's bra clasp with ample Sollecito DNA on it
- Knox footprints with DNA
- A lone bloody footprint in the bathroom matching Sollecito with nothing leading to or from it.
- Very odd behavior, partial confessions, contradictions, changing of stories, implausibly poor memories, falsely accusing an innocent man
- Telling the police that Meredith always locked her door, when she never did
- A broken window with zero glass on the ground outside and no disturbances to the glass on the sill, despite the need from the high window to pull oneself clumsily through
- A pattern of wounds and a bizarre lack of normal defensive wounds, consistent with multiple attackers and very unusual with one attacker
- Multiple witnesses that contradict Knox's story
Then please come up with a compelling theory to explain that in terms of Rudy only guilt, or link me to someone intelligent who has.
Any theory of Knox and Sollecito guilt can explain all of that perfectly (whatever the particulars of how and why the murder progressed, which are pure guesswork). How does a theory of Rudy alone explain the evidence?
You've listed all the guilters talking points that were destroyed during the appeal and have been discussed in hundreds of thousands of posts all over the www.
You dismiss or ignore the fact rudy was an unemployed criminal directly and indirectly tied to multiple crimes in the weeks leading upto the murder as some sort of red-herring even though the case for guilt involves ak & rs breaking the window to look like a burglary with his very MO. Rudy being in possession of a stolen laptop from a lawyers office where the second story window was broken with a rock just like at the cottage is another red-herring and nothing but a brilliant fluke ak & rs should simulate after rudy had finished getting his dna inside the victim in there diabolical cleaning and staging plan.
All the prosecution and police lies are ignored, the computers destroyed, the sleeping jurors in the the first trial, the bra clasp rusting, the knife edf's withheld, the tmb results, the 56 errors in c&v......
There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?
All the sattalite trials including one against the parents for just mentioning during an interview what their daughter said. The secret recording of raff meeting with his lawyers for the first time, the denial of counsel till just before their first court appearance, 39,000 wire taps, the 182 000 cartoon, putting them in solitary confinement to break them....
I could add 30 more things but you wouldn't care. You're not an open minded reasonable person willing to see just what a farce/hoax the case for guilt was.
You got involved because I hurt your feelings. That is to say I made fun of a certain type of person in BFI and even though I didn't know it at the time you were a member of that demographic. Ever since you've gone out of your way to try to confront me despite it constantly leading to you looking like an ass.
You're not an open minded reasonable person. You've shown that once again in recent posts by stating you found it strange two students would hook up within hours of meeting at a classical music concert and then spend all their free time together even though one of them was on the verge of finishing school and leaving town permanently. You find this odd, whereas I dont. I can relate to it and most certainly do not find it out of the ordinary at all.
Seeing them every day? Sure. Staying over every night? Maybe. But every waking and sleeping hour except for lectures is odd. Unless Sollecito is lying, which is possible.
You dismiss or ignore the fact rudy was an unemployed criminal directly and indirectly tied to multiple crimes in the weeks leading upto the murder as some sort of red-herring
If you take away the faked break in, the clean up, the bizarre behavior, the autopsy evidence, fingering of an innocent man, Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp, the DNA footprints, the changing stories, the victim's DNA on a knife, then yes, Rudy did it, case closed.
In fact, if Amanda has not acted like a raging weirdo - bizarrely different to anyone else involved in the aftermath of the death - she may not even have been questioned and charged and further investigations (such as a search of Sollecito's apartment, another evidence sweep, some of the questioning) may not have been done.
even though the case for guilt involves ak & rs breaking the window to look like a burglary. Rudy being in possession of a stolen laptop from a lawyers office where the second story window was broken with a rock just like at the cottage is another red-herring and nothing but a brilliant fluke ak & rs should simulate after rudy had finished getting his dna inside the victim in there diabolical cleaning and staging plan.
All the prosecution and police lies are ignored, the computers destroyed, the sleeping jurors in the the first trial, the bra clasp rusting, the knife edf's withheld, the tmb results, the 56 errors in c&v......
There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?
There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?
The secedt recording of raff meeting with his lawyers for the first time, the denial of counsel till just before their first court appearance, 39,000 wire taps, the 182 000 cartoon, putting them in solitary confinement to break them....
I could add 30 more things but you wouldn't care. You're not an open minded reasonable person willing to see just what a farce/hoax the case for guilt is.
I am not sure what you mean about it being completely out of left field.
From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:
If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99
This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.
That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true
From one of your sides champions Amanda Vogt:
If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy (according to statistics from Eurispes).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news...urder%E2%80%99
This is her information and article and if correct, tells us an average of more then 50,000 people per year are victims of judicial errors or unjust detention and that the Italians were not surprised by this at all.
That seems crazy, but that is what this amazing freelance journalist says and she agrees with your side so it must be true
You're not an open minded reasonable person. You've shown that once again in recent posts by stating you found it strange two students would hook up within hours of meeting at a classical music concert and then spend all their free time together even though one of them was on the verge of finishing school and leaving town permanently.
I have no idea where Raffaele was in his studies and I find it strange that he would be ending them in November but regardless of his academic status he would never have left Perugia. A brat with a rich daddy who was a virgin until recently ad who everyone describes as scary possessive does not leave. Your attempt to characterize the relationship as Raffaele having one last go at getting his dick wet in Perugia is complete bull****. Raffaele was crazy and obsessive with respect to Knox and there is no way he was going to leave town unless she came with him. The level of this obsession was such that I wouldn't be surprised if it factored into his motivation and that he didn't see participating in the murder as something that would bind them together forever and make it much more difficult for Knox to leave.
You've listed all the guilters talking points that were destroyed during the appeal and have been discussed in hundreds of thousands of posts all over the www.
You dismiss or ignore the fact rudy was an unemployed criminal directly and indirectly tied to multiple crimes in the weeks leading upto the murder as some sort of red-herring even though the case for guilt involves ak & rs breaking the window to look like a burglary with his very MO. Rudy being in possession of a stolen laptop from a lawyers office where the second story window was broken with a rock just like at the cottage is another red-herring and nothing but a brilliant fluke ak & rs should simulate after rudy had finished getting his dna inside the victim in there diabolical cleaning and staging plan.
With respect to other involvement it happened. You would do much better to argue that Rudy had help but that it was not Amanda and Raffaele than to deny the existence of other people present. The involvement of other individuals is not in question and the evidence of it is unquestionable. Someone was in that cottage after Rudy had left. They cleaned and moved the body. You can argue that it was not Amanda and Raffaele but you can not deny that other people were there.
All the prosecution and police lies are ignored, the computers destroyed, the sleeping jurors in the the first trial, the bra clasp rusting, the knife edf's withheld, the tmb results, the 56 errors in c&v......
There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?
There is dozens of these and none of it means much to you?
All the sattalite trials including one against the parents for just mentioning during an interview what their daughter said.
The secret recording of raff meeting with his lawyers for the first time, the denial of counsel till just before their first court appearance, 39,000 wire taps, the 182 000 cartoon, putting them in solitary confinement to break them....
I could add 30 more things but you wouldn't care. You're not an open minded reasonable person willing to see just what a farce/hoax the case for guilt was.
Anyway I will extend my offer from one to three items. You pick the three items from the list above that you think are the most important and I'll explain why they are meaningless or lies.
So it's a no then, you haven't had a fling while travelling, etc. K.
It's relevant because it points towards their innocence. There isn't anything about their relationship that would indicate they were likely to be involved, it's the exact opposite, their relationship makes it less likely for them to be involved.
Are you serious? LOL, no this is not strange. This is pretty standard for a passionate fling situation.
So you've now stopped discussing their relationship and have moved on to something else entirely. Are you arguing that the possession of violent media imagery and anime are likely indicators of violence?
I think you'd probably see crazier stuff browsing reddit than what he had. He had a file on his computer, there is no pattern of fetishism or outlandish behavior here that makes it likely he was involved in the murder. Let's have a look at your entire browsing history and see what turns up.
I think it was Henry himself who mentioned that carrying pocket knives in Europe was a cultural thing. But again I don't see how this points to murder here. Raf simply wasn't a violent person by all accounts. It's fascinating to me that you discount an eyewitness saying Guede pulled a knife on him mid-burglary and hold this stuff up as proof of something. And what does this have to do with the "oddness" of their relationship.
You'd have to be more specific about this one.
Again, you started off talking about their relationship being odd and now you've spiraled into character assault. The reality is you're trying to fabricate a motive because there isn't one in this case for a scenario that includes Amanda and Raf. Guede had pulled a knife on someone when caught mid burglary. That is strong circumstantial evidence.
The brevity of their relationship is relevant, but not a slam dunk given how odd it was.
Are these things normal to you:
- Spending every non lecture waking and sleeping moment together for five days with someone you just met?
- Spending every non lecture waking and sleeping moment together for five days with someone you just met?
- Collecting violent sexual magazines
- Watching animal porn
- Collecting knives and carrying one everywhere, even to the police station, only stopping when your father tells you that's not a good idea?
- Getting kicked out of campus housing because you're a creep?
Yes or no? I don't know what kind of circles you hang around in, but these are decidedly abnormal to me. 1/5 might be passable, but 5/5 is psycho territory.
Both guilt and innocent of near certainty are reasonable perspectives on this case. This is one of the reasons the case is so interesting. I think intelligent impartial people can come to either conclusion after deeply examining the evidence. So I am asking 239 if he knows of such a person, so I can read his/her arguments and potentially find them compelling and change my mind. Crickets so far.
As an example, a person who believed the following would probably think she is innocent:
1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room
If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.
So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.
1. There's a simple, common explanation for the crime (Rudy did it alone in a bungled burglary) that fits with most of the prima facie evidence. Occam's razor.
2. Experts and prosecutors are often wrong or mistaken
3. Witnesses are often unreliable.
4. Multiple pieces of very odd behavior can be innocently explained
5. DNA contamination is common with shoddy police work
6. It's extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raf would be murderers given their circumstances
7. There are no credible ways in which three people, one an acquaintance, would participate in a murder together
8. It's extremely unlikely that none of them would confess.
9. It's extremely unlikely that someone could participate in a violent murder and not leave DNA or fingerprints in the murder room
If you believed all of those things, which are reasonable and intuitive on their face, then (1) wins out big time if you downplay certain things. I probably agree with 1, 2 & 3 and would be open to arguing 4.
So I'm trying to narrow down our points of contention here. To me, 5,6,7,8,9 are all very wrong (although I can see how the average person would believe them), so the sheer weight of multiple pieces of strong evidence makes guilt a near certainty for me. If you want to convince me and others otherwise, you'll have to start showing why you are correct on 5,6,7,8,9.
Using your logic, we have better evidence that put in a similar situation, Guede has demonstrated that he will not resort to violence; at most he may threaten it.
Furthermore, notwithstanding these brushes with the law, Guede never was punished with any jail time or anything significant. Indeed, given Guede's experience, he understood that being caught in the circumstances that the non-guilters say were present on the night of the murder (Meredith catching him in the act of burglary) Guede would now resort to murder, even though he understood from his own experience that he was only going to get a slap on the wrist.
So, with Rudy, we have a relative "known" as he had been in that situation before and was not otherwise operating outside of his normal m.o.
Yet with AK/RS (as has been pointed out) were in the middle of an intense fling (you've all had one like this, right? Right? (Lol - so dumb, really. Great point, bro) and were not exactly acting rationally to begin with.
239: really, if you are trying to convince anyone of your position, you need too move past this hand-jive. Start working with the evidence, because all the "behavioral/motive" stuff points more to AK/RS than Guede - yet we do know, notwithstanding this, that Guede was involved. Therefore, when looking at how improbable things are regarding involvement, we understand that the person less likely to have done this base on those factors, actually was involved. Accordingly, these things we are supposed to find "impossible" regarding AK/RS are actually less "impossible" than when we apply them to Guede - yet he was involved.
As I stated recently, I am not going to do your work so that I can provide you with an opportunity to convince me of your position. If you don't care enough to do these things on your own, then I guess, too bad?
If you have such a mastery of this subject, why are you incapable of providing a competent discourse from the innocence perspective? If someone on JREF has already done that, and on your opinion has done it better than you can, by all means cut and paste (and provide the link).
As it stands, you are not accomplishing anything here.
Truthsayer,
Why are you now clearly ignoring this?
You apparently claim it not to be true, so much so that you are willing to bet me, indicating you can prove this.
You come here and do what appears to be the same thing you and others are mocking a few other posters here, preventing you all from having a one-sided masturbate fest with all your buddies here.
I am calling you a LIAR, a phony, and a hypocrite.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
Why are you now clearly ignoring this?
Originally Posted by PFunk
You joined here in November 2012, and have a broad knowledge of this case immediately.
Half of your posts are in this thread exclusively from close to the beginning (I can only see back a certain distance, not sure if or how possible to see all).
This gives you less then 3 months time as a member here under the name "Truthsayer" which also reflects a relation to this topic specifically, in which you post in incessantly.
Are you saying you have another account here previously?
Half of your posts are in this thread exclusively from close to the beginning (I can only see back a certain distance, not sure if or how possible to see all).
This gives you less then 3 months time as a member here under the name "Truthsayer" which also reflects a relation to this topic specifically, in which you post in incessantly.
Are you saying you have another account here previously?
I am calling you a LIAR, a phony, and a hypocrite.
Go ahead, prove me wrong.
You got involved because I hurt your feelings. That is to say I made fun of a certain type of person in BFI and even though I didn't know it at the time you were a member of that demographic. Ever since you've gone out of your way to try to confront me despite it constantly leading to you looking like an ass.
Henry, this is like one of the longest threads in OOT. You have 20,000,0000 posts and this is the only topic or thread I am participating in which you just so happen to be the ringleader in. I could find about 30 posts every day on here if I wanted to follow you around and have lolHenry moments every day...but I don't, do I?
In fact, I AVOID reading your posts in BFI and elsewhere and try not to even acknowledge you because of how ******ed some of your information and opinions are.
Do I ever respond to you or follow you in other threads or ignite conversation?...NO. We've been at it a few times in the past yes, but I make it a point to not even attempt to debate with you, nor acknowledge you.
NOW....why have you not responded to my post about all your great professional, educated experts who are siding on the guilt side.
Did I blow it up that bad that you don't even have a response?
Surely you can spin something from it....you are the Queen of that.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE