ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old Today, 07:11 AM   #2441
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,803
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That's the judges' job and that what they did: they judged the evidence was, there were multiple attackers/accomplices.
A perfect example of your dishonest approach. You are willing to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of EXPERTS and embrace legal officials instead. Just don't pretend there isn't very good reason for the rest of us to believe there was only a single attacker.
__________________
A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:41 AM   #2442
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,803
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This reminds me of the Stephen Avery supporters. They are furious because police got Dassey to be truthful about his involvement. He was there, he did it.

A perp tells the truth: must be police coercion. Shouldn't be allowed!
But there is no evidence that Amanda's statement is the truth. IN FACT, we know it wasn't even close to the truth. Amanda doesn't say she was involved, she doesn't say Raffaele was involved, she doesn't say that Rudy was involved. She says she doesn't trust her statement and names Patrick very unconvincingly.

Let's see what is wrong with her statement.
  1. No evidence Amanda was there that night
  2. No evidence Raffaele was there that night
  3. Evidence that Patrick wasn't there.
  4. Nothing about the person who left his DNA inside Meredith.
  5. Nothing about the person that left bloody shoe prints throughout the house.
  6. Nothing about the person who left his bloody palmprint.
  7. Nothing about the person who was convicted.
  8. Not a word about Rudy.
Amanda's statement is false from beginning to end. Even Amanda shows in the wording that she doesn't believe it. This hardly supports your case.

Nevertheless;
Quote:
hundreds of convicted prisoners have been exonerated by DNA and non-DNA evidence, revealing that police-induced false confessions are a leading cause of wrongful conviction of the innocent.
http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332
It's a free country so you're still entitled to believe what you want. But don't pretend that the rest of us don't have very good rational logical reasons to accept the FINAL OUTCOME that Amanda and Raffaele are both innocent and Rudy is guilty.
__________________
A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; Today at 08:03 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:13 AM   #2443
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,444
Originally Posted by Vixen
This reminds me of the Stephen Avery supporters. They are furious because police got Dassey to be truthful about his involvement. He was there, he did it.

A perp tells the truth: must be police coercion. Shouldn't be allowed!
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
But there is no evidence that Amanda's statement is the truth. IN FACT, we know it wasn't even close to the truth. Amanda doesn't say she was involved, she doesn't say Raffaele was involved, she doesn't say that Rudy was involved. She says she doesn't trust her statement and names Patrick very unconvincingly.
Vixen is unaware that the Reid Technique of interrogations is slowly being walked back - including the interrogation training organization which has recently come out against it.




http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...under-scrutiny

http://commlawreview.org/Archives/CL...20CLRv10i2.pdf

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedM...gation_method/

This is famed Jim Smyth's reason why it works, assuming the person is guilty.
Quote:
(The Reid Technique is) an accusatory process in which the investigator tells the suspect that the results of the investigation clearly indicate that he did commit the crime in question. The interrogation is in the form of a monologue presented by the investigator rather than a question and answer format. The demeanour of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. The Reid technique user's goal is to make the suspect gradually more comfortable with telling the truth. This is accomplished by the investigators' first imagining and then offering the suspect various psychological constructs as justification for their behaviour.
But when it doesn't work.....
Quote:
Smyth's work, however, also demonstrates how the technique can be viewed by the courts as a violation of a suspect's rights. In 2011, Cory Armishaw was cleared of second-degree murder over the shaking death of three-month-old Jaydin Lindeman, with the presiding judge ruling Armishaw's confession to Smyth was involuntary,
“obtained by threats of harsh, severe and unsympathetic treatment from the courts if Mr. Armishaw did not give up the right to remain silent and confess.”
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:40 AM   #2444
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,803
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Vixen is unaware that the Reid Technique of interrogations is slowly being walked back - including the interrogation training organization which has recently come out against it.
I doubt it would matter to her. Vixen believes what she believes and it doesn't matter that the evidence contradicts her. This is faith.
__________________
A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; Today at 10:08 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:47 AM   #2445
Stacyhs
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am the only one around here not blinkered. So you once spoke to Edda and shook the hand of Amanda's fake fiance, and now you're her fiercest champion.
Uh-huh. That's got to be it. Just because no one else can see the pink unicorn doesn't mean you don't see it, right?

By the way, meeting them was the result of my support, not the cause of it. Most people could have figured that one out.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.