Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

Actually no, a discussion involves give and take, not just reading one person's opinion. That blog ignores several things like the ludicrous knife that was pulled randomly from a drawer of knives is somehow miraculously the murder weapon and the disproven footprint thing and presents them as fact.

But to each his own.

[mariab]

That blog ignores several things like the ludicrous knife that was pulled randomly from a drawer of knives is somehow miraculously the murder weapon

Absolutely. There far too many blogs on the internet anyway nowadays, and not any of them are to be trusted as gospel. The BBC documentary is quite good, it used to be available on YouTube.

[Chris]

Actually no, a discussion involves give and take, not just reading one person's opinion. That blog ignores several things like the ludicrous knife that was pulled randomly from a drawer of knives is somehow miraculously the murder weapon and the disproven footprint thing and presents them as fact.

Ally, I read more rational discussion on that blog in half an hour today than I've seen in a lifetime of your Casebook postings.

[Chris]

That blog ignores several things like the ludicrous knife that was pulled randomly from a drawer of knives is somehow miraculously the murder weapon and the disproven footprint thing and presents them as fact..

The point is that the blog doesn't simply present assumptions as facts. It discusses the arguments pro and con.

It would be a great shame if anyone who is actually interested in the case took Ally's (or Maria's) comments about the blog at face value without checking it out for themselves.

[Ally]

Hi Chris,

Bite me.

And if you actually think that a blogger with a clear agenda who still relies on long discredited and completely disproven "facts" as presenting a balanced "pro and con" of the case is credible...well can I just say that doesn't bode well of any of your contributions to the criminal discussion here or anywhere else. You've been reading a blogger with a clearly defined agenda for 30 whole minutes, well good for you. I've been reading about this case for 3 years.

So from this point on, on this particular subject, I will consider you a complete idiot who doesn't know his hole from a hole in the ground and treat you accordingly.

You clearly don't know enough about the facts to form a reasonable opinion so you are just blathering on uselessly. I'll leave you to it and ignore you from now on, on this subject since it's clear you don' t know jack.

[Chris]

Ally

Dear oh dear. Anyone would think you were trying to provoke an argument! But no one who knows you could believe that ...

[John Hacker]

She has a point Chris. That blogger is straight out of PMF where they develop arguments in a vacuum where dissent is not allowed. Its the poorly reasoned arguments of people like him that make it clear how pathetic the prosecutions case is.

They've patted themselves on the back for years and congratulated themselves on being right by telling themselves that the judges agreed with then. Now that they've lost that defense they're lost on a sea of paranoia where the courts had to have been bought off to not see their gospel truth. Its sad really.

They can repeat discredited mantras until the end of days and pretend its discussion, but no one familiar with their antics is silly enough to buy it.

[mariab]

It would be a great shame if anyone who is actually interested in the case took Ally's (or Maria's) comments about the blog at face value without checking it out for themselves.

Chris, if you don't mind my asking you to, please check the relevant BBC documentary. It covers the case comprehensively, and it's not some private blog. I'll check the blog in question when I have a minute, but please excuse my not putting much faith or being very interested in random blogs.
By the by, this is not a case for pro and con arguments, this is simply a case of the police and the prosecutor having ludicrously misjudged evidence (as in the random knife from the kitchen etc.). The BBC documentary also has a look at the prosecutor's tragically mishandled older cases in his career, which is a pattern for this guy.

[Chris]

She has a point Chris. That blogger is straight out of PMF where they develop arguments in a vacuum where dissent is not allowed. Its the poorly reasoned arguments of people like him that make it clear how pathetic the prosecutions case is.

Well, dissent obviously is allowed - there are comments on that blog from people in both camps.

I'm afraid I'm not at all convinced by your characterisation of the blog. If it's not a detailed discussion of the arguments on both sides, it's certainly a very skilful and well-informed simulation of one.

Having said that, I'm happy to admit that I don't know a great deal about the case, and I don't have the time to research it. I merely posted the link because Ally seemed to be asking what the prosecution's arguments were.

[tji]

Hi all

Thanks for the link Chris, I for one found it interesting, even if you do believe Know innocent it still gives an overall view. He allows people their opinion.

Hi John

Thanks for your explanations on why you believe them innocent. As I said previously I can understand your viewpoint, I am not stuck in 'I think they are guilty so everyone should' mindset. However I think there are too many questions without answers.

One thing I agree is the Prosecution actually seems to have been the defences best weapon!

Hi Ally

I have gotten my opinion from the information given on the internet - the only way that I can get it, I assume everybody is the same.

As to why I think that, well it is my opinion, I cant really give a different answer from that.

From the information I have read, the away the DNA evidence (although I still stand at the fact there could have been evidence there - we will just never know.) I think her actions were wrong, I won't reiterate them all again, they are the same they always were but I think the inconsistences point to her knowing something more.

As far as I can see it I think we can just say we should agree to disagree.

Tracy

[Ally]

Hi Tracy,

I am not being snotty (though I can absolutely be on occasion) but it seems to me that an opinion about something that cannot be supported by facts or evidence isn't really worth much as an opinion, and therefore, probably shouldn't be shared.

"Because that's what I think" isn't really a strong supporting statement.

"I don't like cheddar cheese." "Why not?" "I just don't like it!" ...uhm okay that's fair some people just don't like things. But it's not really a rational argument. That's a matter of personal preference. But we aren't talking about something that is a matter of personal preference, we are talking about something that is reliant on facts and evidence that point to the murder of a young girl.

Even in matters of personal preference, one can usually support ones opinions:
"I don't like cheese because the texture is awful and the taste is bitter".

Even in matters of personal preference, there are logical rationales, and there is closing your eyes and saying "because!"

And again, this isn't a matter merely of personal taste preferences. This is a case, with facts and evidence and conclusions waiting to be drawn, on a crime board, whose specific purpose is to discuss crime. Honestly, if you can't come up with a single reason you think points to her guilt, not one single specific reason, then no, I don't have to just agree to disagree.

Not everyone's opinion is worth the same. Informed, reasoned and supported opinions are always worth more than opinions based on "because".

[Errata]

Not everyone's opinion is worth the same. Informed, reasoned and supported opinions are always worth more than opinions based on "because".

I think you are both wrong and right.
Everyone's opinion IS in fact worth the same. And equally valid. "Because" is not typically useful in a debate, but it is valid.

For example, I was convinced my neighbor was a drug dealer. Why? Because the people who went in his house gave me that vibe. My fiance said he was not a drug dealer, because he had a 9-5, was doing home improvements himself, didn't have a lot of cash, and when my fiance was in his house, he saw no evidence of drugs, either the dealing or the consuming of such. Neither his lifestyle nor station in life was consistent with dealing.

He was totally dealing. Got hauled off three days ago.

During the Black Death several people actually helping the sick made the deduction that the Plague was spread by touch, as members of the same family would be afflicted, and those tending the sick in the closest manner would come down with it as well. And as far as containment goes that theory could have held for quite a while. Some astronomer or some such said that the Plague was brought by rats, as both came under the same auspex and were influenced by the same planetary forces or some nonsense. He was right. Came about it through complete crap, but he was not wrong.

Opinions, theories, hypotheses, all come out even in worth until the facts are ascertained. We can give points for degrees of right or wrong if we want, but in the end, it is either right or wrong. A well supported theory that turns out to be wrong is not better than an unsupported one that turns out to be right. But the beauty of the opinion is that by definition it is neither right nor wrong. I hate olives. I think they taste nasty. I can't really support that statement, as I don't think olives are inherently evil or have a case against their consumption. I think Glenn Beck is quite possibly the most awful man in the US who hasn't killed or raped someone. I can support that statement through my opinions of his opinions, but I can't prove it, and I can't be dissuaded from it through any action other than my own.

Theories and hypotheses, unlike opinions, require justification. Justification preferably in the realm of fact, but any kind of specific reasoning will do. Theories and hypotheses are made to be challenged, and should be.

The old saying about opinions and a$$holes is true, everybody has one. But also true of other people's a$$holes, they have no place in an intellectual debate, and if someone is going to whip one out they better have a damn good reason or they are going to get pounded. All opinions are valid. But opinions don't get you a seat at the big boy table, where theories and hypotheses do. So if you are looking for logical discourse on the subject, which is perfectly fine, insist on theories and hypotheses, or wait for those who have them. It's fine to dismiss an opinion as unhelpful for your purposes. But opinions aren't wrong, and all are equally valid.

Sort of like all malt liquors are equally valid choices to make, but if I drink whiskey what do I care about the world of malt liquors?

[Rubyretro]

I'm very, very busy at the mo' -so no time to read back through this thread..

Well, now that Knowles and Sollecito have been found not guilty I suppose that the Italian Police will be leaving no stones unturned to find the real culprits ? ( from the marks on Meredith's body, and the lack of defense wounds, someone held her down for Guide).

[Ally]

I think you are both wrong and right.
Everyone's opinion IS in fact worth the same. And equally valid. "Because" is not typically useful in a debate, but it is valid.

I disagree entirely.

For example, I was convinced my neighbor was a drug dealer. Why? Because the people who went in his house gave me that vibe.

But I bet if pressed, you could come up with some legitimate reasons why the people gave you that "vibe". For example: general appearance, rate of traffic, people coming, staying ten minutes, then leaving, at regular intervals. You observed the people coming and going from his house and made a deduction based on that. That's not "just a vibe". That's a vibe based on observation of what was occurring in your environment. You even gave a reason to back up your opinion: the people you saw frequenting his house. That's not actually based on "just because".

Opinions, theories, hypotheses, all come out even in worth until the facts are ascertained. We can give points for degrees of right or wrong if we want, but in the end, it is either right or wrong. A well supported theory that turns out to be wrong is not better than an unsupported one that turns out to be right.

This is only true if you measure every discussion in terms of "right" and "wrong". The chances that anyone will ever be persuaded that they are wrong in the vast majority of instances being discussed on this forum is slim to none. So the only thing that actually matters in terms of discussion is how well you can support your opinion.

But the beauty of the opinion is that by definition it is neither right nor wrong. I hate olives. I think they taste nasty. I can't really support that statement, as I don't think olives are inherently evil or have a case against their consumption.

But you did support it. You said they taste nasty. Or you can say to you they taste like dirt. There's a large number of people who think cilantro tastes like dish soap. It turns out there's something genetic there, but before that was known, it's still valid and legitimate to say "I don't like cilantro because it tastes like dish soap". It's a lot more logical than saying I don't because.

I think Glenn Beck is quite possibly the most awful man in the US who hasn't killed or raped someone. I can support that statement through my opinions of his opinions, but I can't prove it, and I can't be dissuaded from it through any action other than my own.

Exactly. You could support it. You could give evidence of things he said or did that formed your opinion that he's an awful person. Which is all that's being requested here. No one asked for "proof" of an opinion. They were asked to support their opinion and if you aren't willing to support your statements on a discussion forum, what's the point of being on a discussion forum?

[Ally]

Well, now that Knowles and Sollecito have been found not guilty I suppose that the Italian Police will be leaving no stones unturned to find the real culprits ? ( from the marks on Meredith's body, and the lack of defense wounds, someone held her down for Guide).

Or you know, that tremendous blow she suffered to her face prior to her death knocked her sufficiently out that she didn't struggle or even know what was occurring during the stabbing due to being stunned. She is hit, beat, held down and raped (all which could occur by one person) all probably at knife point which could result in the superficial shallow cuts.

If someone hits you hard in the face, I guarantee you are going to be stunned for a bit and it's not beyond the realm to think you might be disoriented enough to not fight.

Oh and Knox.