You are attacking a strawman here. I have refrained arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty simply because they were charged and ultimately convicted.
I didn’t say that’s what you argued. I said that if you were to look into the cases of those defendants later considered to be exonerated by DNA evidence, you would likely find grounds for being suspicious of them similar to the grounds on which you are suspicious of Knox and Sollecito. (In fact, I am given to understand that 25% of them actually confessed to the crime.)
I am saying that as an attorney, I have heard hundreds of people give statements or testify. In situations where (1) peoples’ stories have been incoherent/inconsistent in a manner similar to that of Knox;
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about here. One keeps hearing these claims that Knox was “inconsistent”, “changed her story”, and the like. But the account given at Friends of Amanda seems perfectly convincing to me. From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s. But she was told (falsely) that there was solid physical evidence placing her at the crime scene. This was understandably confusing to her. So after hours of being berated by interrogators, she finally gave in to their pressure by speculating—upon their prompting! -- about Patrick Lumumba. This doesn’t sound like evidence of guilt to me. You say that it does to you because of your experience as an attorney, but you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining why—and more importantly, why it comes anywhere near to trumping the other evidence.
At a minimum, you responded to the argument as if somebody had made it. Since you were responding to my post, it’s reasonable to infer that you were attributing that argument to me.
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their >understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
No.
From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s
During what time period? From approximately what hour to approximately what hour?
I didn’t say that’s what you argued. I said that if you were to look into the cases of those defendants later considered to be exonerated by DNA evidence, you would likely find grounds for being suspicious of them similar to the grounds on which you are suspicious of Knox and Sollecito. (In fact, I am given to understand that 25% of them actually confessed to the crime.)
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about here. One keeps hearing these claims that Knox was “inconsistent”, “changed her story”, and the like. But the account given at Friends of Amanda seems perfectly convincing to me. From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s. But she was told (falsely) that there was solid physical evidence placing her at the crime scene. This was understandably confusing to her. So after hours of being berated by interrogators, she finally gave in to their pressure by speculating—upon their prompting! -- about Patrick Lumumba. This doesn’t sound like evidence of guilt to me. You say that it does to you because of your experience as an attorney, but you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining why—and more importantly, why it comes anywhere near to trumping the other evidence.
At a minimum, you responded to the argument as if somebody had made it. Since you were responding to my post, it’s reasonable to infer that you were attributing that argument to me.
No.
During what time period? From approximately what hour to approximately what hour?