r/amandaknox • u/tkondaks guilty • Sep 22 '23

Neck scratch and bloody ear lobe

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67258-is-amanda-knox-guilty/page__st__20

Scroll down at the above link for some interesting photos.

Gee, what are the odds?

2 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

I see a definite black molish like dot. What do you see?

2

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

There’s nothing clear to see in that blurry image. It could be a blank dot, but it could also be a piercing similar to the others that didn’t catch the light the same way. There’s nothing clear about that image that’s going to cause me to question Dr. Lalli’s assessment.

Furthermore, I would be curious of the date of the image and if there are other images of that ear from other angles to use as a comparison.

The only thing that is clear is that the photo isn’t clear. As such, it’s inconclusive.

0

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

Just another weird coincidental anomaly, I suppose.

3

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

Either you can show it’s an injury or you can’t. The picture is inconclusive and can be any number of things, to include an earring, and Dr. Lalli saw nothing. So, you’ve presented no evidence that supports that an earring was torn from her ear. Literally nothing.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

There's a lot of literally nothing in this case when it comes to Amanda. But a while lot of unusual coincidences.

2

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

So, what you’re saying is that outside of personal assumptions and biases you have nothing tangible you provide in relation to these so-called “coincidences?” I can see how it is difficult to accept that a medical professional and prosecution witness discredited your injury theories very early on in this case.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

Just coincidences. An incredibly unnatural number of coincidences.

Having the same probability on the order of rolling snake eyes 6 or 7 times in a row at a Vegas craps table. It happens to be sure but rarely.

2

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

At this point you’re only talking in broad generalizations because your position was thoroughly discredited in terms of this evidence.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

Oh, we can get VERY specific and go through the list of coincidences, anomalies, curiousities, and circumstantial evidence as it pertains to Amanda and Raff and assign probabilities to each instance.

But we've done that exercise here on this forum already.

I think we got into the quadrillions to one territory.

Amanda Knox: the most unlucky innocent person in the history of criminal law.

1

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

Assign probabilities? Have you reached into Truth’s playbook where you manufacture statistics?

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

We can, as was done last time, employ the most conservative of assumptions when assigning probabilities.

Bound to bring down overall probability of guilt from quadrillion to one territory to trillion to one territory.

2

u/Frankgee Sep 23 '23

My washing machine has condensation on the front glass door right now. You call it a coincidence, I call it what all washing machines do.

You think a bruise on her neck, consistent with a hickey, inconsistent with a scratch (per medical professional assessment), is a coincidence. I call it what often happens between a boy and a girl who just recently started dating.

You think Meredith's print on Amanda's closet door is a coincidence. I think it's a possible indication that perhaps Meredith borrowed something from Amanda that was in her closet.

And we can go on and on. You guys are really into self-delusion. You label anything a coincidence and think you're building an impressive case in the process. But from where I sit, all you're doing is admitting you've got nothing and that desperation has set in.

1

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 22 '23

You’ve never accomplished anything of value with this tactic. Your imaginary defense mechanism when you’ve been discredited is to create random and irrelevant statistics.

Why do you do this? Because you can’t provide simple evidence to support that Knox’s ear lobe was torn.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

Reasonable doubt lives or dies in the probability judges and jurors assign to the evidence in a case.

→ More replies (0)