Page 17 of 83 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 27 67 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 1236
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Of course, "pro-guilt" applies to belief in the guilt of AK and RS, which is why I don't see your problem with the term. Nobody has ever suggested MK was in any way responsible for her own death; nor should they, IMHO.

    It's certainly a more precise term than "pro-justice," which applies to everyone, regardless of their opinion on the verdicts. And more precise than "pro-conspiracy" with regards to ILE, since very few posters have argued such a conspiracy transpired.

    This is beginning to feel like a shell game: no matter what term any of us use, you will define it literally and narrowly and complain the proper term is something else.
    Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?


  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Then why doesn't he put arrows on all the smeared blood that could be hand-markings?
    Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.


  3. #243
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,037
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.
    It's conceivable, but what I don't understand is why AK and RS didn't go directly to the police. In your scenario, they invite a guest to the cottage and encourage him to ask MK to join them, but they have no prior knowledge that RG will rape and kill MK. So maybe they felt guilty on some level, but so guilty they didn't notice that they hadn't caused the murder? So guilty it never occurred to them that in staging a break-in they were only making matters worse? So guilty it never occurred to them that cleaning up was tampering with evidence? I find all that a stretch (ETA particularly since RS had a close relative who worked for the police).

    But I have to wonder, why do you hold such enmity toward AK? Is it only that she accused an innocent man (no small sin, I agree)? Because in your scenario, she doesn't really do much to MK but say to a mutual friend, "Let's do some hash and party!"

    ***

    Re the language barrier, I'm glad you're letting AK order pizza now. But the fact is we don't know her precise level of fluency beyond that. We know it fell well short of perfect knowledge of Italian, but how far short we just don't know.


  4. #244
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?
    I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.


  5. #245
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    No, you could just answer a simple question. Are you quoting Dr. S or are you deducing a conclusion based on his testimony?

    I never argued that they ate 3 times. That was something you invented; quite honesty, I can't remember why, but I assume you believed something I said implied multiple dinners. It did not.
    It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.


  6. #246
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The language barrier prevented them from discussing anything beyond pizza, but they both like sex and drugs. Raffaele was moving to Milan in mid-November and Amanda's one semester study period was ending in Dec. They could have been looking to deepen their communication - which was through a mutual interest in sex and drugs. Raffaele had prior hard drug use. It's conceivable they shut down the phones and decided to score some cocaine or other hard drugs in the square, bumped into Rudy, headed to the cottage and there they found Meredith. It's conceivable that they were getting loaded while Meredith wanted a quiet evening. It's conceivable that Amanda put Rudy up to getting Meredith in on the party, or coming on to her. It's conceivable that things went very wrong.
    Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.


  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Malkmus For This Useful Post:


  8. #247
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
    Probably because they aren't all hand markings and aspirated blood drops? Maybe you should ask him? I can't believe there's this much discussion over the meaning of a couple arrows pointing at what an author is talking about.
    The big black arrows look very official, but they don't correspond to the direction of blood drops, and if they correspond to hand-prints, then I have to ask why the other bloody smudges are not also indicated with big black arrows. They too could be hand-prints. As it stands, the big black arrows have no consistent meaning.


  9. #248
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,037
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?
    Yes, and we all obliged you by moving on to other terms, terms you now find objectionable as well. This is why I asked you to provide an acceptable vocabulary for all of us.


  10. #249
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Pro-guilt is derogatory. I don't know anyone that advocates guilt. Wait ... I'm having yet another deja vu moment ... wasn't it just a week ago we had this very same discussion?
    Oh for god's sake---in this sense pro means "yes"---ok, "the Yes - They-Be -Guilty" or "the No-they-do not be guilty" --that is the terminology i will now use


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  12. #250
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
    I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.
    Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".


  13. #251
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
    I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.
    Nor I. In all other threads I've seen, "pro-guilt" is understood to mean one believes in the guilt of the defendant or primary suspect.

    otto and I have our differences at times, but nobody here has remotely implied that otto wants anything but justice in this case. If somebody were to do so, I believe there would be a mass uproar from both those who agree with otto and those of us who disagree.


  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  15. #252
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    24,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
    Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.
    No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  17. #253
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,855

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".
    oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)


  18. #254
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,037
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.
    Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

    Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

    There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

    I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

    But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.


  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  20. #255
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,037
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)
    I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

    We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.


  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


Page 17 of 83 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 27 67 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1206
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 12:43 AM
  2. Replies: 749
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:59 PM
  3. Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:45 PM
  4. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •