Amanda Knox and the State Department

[Samson]

Good enough.

But I still believe John Kerry flew over, stormed into Cassation and thundered I demand you acquit Amanda Knox and said remember Hiroshima.

 

[BazBear]

Let us try a definition.

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.

Note that I am not a conspiracy theorist, but a believer in intervention when the judicial system turns rogue. As I have mentioned, I have an interest in local cases that are unresolved.
The pattern that emerges with wrongful convictions varies little, but the solutions and outcomes vary widely from freeing the poor suckers to letting them suffer the prisoner's dilemma in perpetuity.

Indeed, there are far too many wrongful convictions, even in the most enlightened criminal justice systems. That said, it seems to me you are inferring that the U.S. State Dept. influenced the final outcome. Maybe you're right, but IMO you haven't made much of a supporting case for that conclusion

 

[BazBear]

Naughty quoting. A believer in what should happen, not what does.
I said in the OP I suspected some sort of proaction by state department. I have no proof. I hoped the thread would find some substantiation, but none has emerged.
You win, my case is unproven.

Samson, it's not about winning, and I'm glad to see you understand why I don't find it convincing.

 

[Metullus]

Naughty quoting. A believer in what should happen, not what does.
I said in the OP I suspected some sort of proaction by state department. I have no proof. I hoped the thread would find some substantiation, but none has emerged.
You win, my case is unproven.

Fair enough, that works.

 

[shuttlt]

This is untrue. On the available evidence, it took American investigators to establish the facts, not Italian investigators. They say they did this because they cared.

What facts and why were their multiple lawyers reliant on Americans who happened to care? What was this crucial detail that they didn't spot until Americans on the Internet spotted it for them?

More heavyweights assembled than in any case in history, I am confident of that statement.

Confident based on what? Surely there have got to be more significant cases out there... Al Magrahi comes to mind, Guildford Four, Birmingham Six (I know UK cases better than US ones)?

 

[shuttlt]

There are people who are convinced by the evidence for homeopathy as well. Effectively you are making something akin to an argument from popularity.

I'm not sure it's the same. Are we saying that to have believed in guilt is really akin to believing in magic essences? Lots of people when they first encountered the case when ever it was that the great thread began found guilt plausible based on what was available on the Internet at the time. I have spent time on both guilt and innocence websites. The guilt ones were certainly no less interested in evidence. Presumably at least some people in Italy found the evidence at least somewhat convincing, unless one accepts the great conspiracy, or assumes the lawyers were too incompetent to mount a proper defence.

For what little it's worth, my view is that when a case gets blown up and picked over to the extent that this one has, one has enough material to built up multiple (in this case, I guess two) mutually contradictory views of the case that are satisfying and convincing from the inside.

 

[Samson]

I'm not sure it's the same. Are we saying that to have believed in guilt is really akin to believing in magic essences? Lots of people when they first encountered the case when ever it was that the great thread began found guilt plausible based on what was available on the Internet at the time. I have spent time on both guilt and innocence websites. The guilt ones were certainly no less interested in evidence. Presumably at least some people in Italy found the evidence at least somewhat convincing, unless one accepts the great conspiracy, or assumes the lawyers were too incompetent to mount a proper defence.

For what little it's worth, my view is that when a case gets blown up and picked over to the extent that this one has, one has enough material to built up multiple (in this case, I guess two) mutually contradictory views of the case that are satisfying and convincing from the inside.

Ironically that post probably belongs on the thread
Let me assure you, it is far easier to prove innocence in these cases than guilt in other cases.
Here are some I know well, chronologically.
Arthur Thomas innocent: found guilty by two juries and two appeal courts. Compensated.
He was home with his wife, and this was easily proved.
Teina Pora, innocent: found guilty by two juries. Exonerated this year by your privy council.
David Bain, innocent: found guilty by one jury, and an appeal court, then not guilty by a jury after your privy council saw through it. The New Zealand government disgracefully continues to shop for a report that denies him compensation.
Scott Watson, innocent: found guilty by one jury, one appeal court, and in jail since. Can not be paroled because he cannot say where he did not dump two bodies.
Mark Lundy, innocent: found guilty by one jury, one appeal court, your privy council saw right through it but ordered another trial where he was found guilty by a dreadful unhinged jury who became psychologists for their task. Cannot be paroled because he won't show remorse for killings of his family by intruders who were seeking financial revenge against him.
Amanda Knox, innocent: found guilty then innocent then guilty then innocent. I hope she takes 69th least corrupt political cesspit Italy to the cleaners.
The proof in her case is exactly as straightforward as the above cases. The patterns are identical. Trust me because I have done the time.

Extrajudicial activism and interference is the only hope for these hapless suckers who all tried to help the police.

Eleven juries to get six people behind bars, all factually innocent.

 

[shuttlt]

Ironically that post probably belongs on the thread<snip>
Amanda Knox, innocent, found guilty then innocent then guilty then innocent.
The proof is exactly as straightforward as the above cases. The patterns are identical.

I've done my time on the thread. I'm not about to do it again. I am certainly not going to go picking through any other cases that are "identical" to the Knox one.

If I did post to the Thread, I'd just get pecked to death. I don't fancy it.

 

[Samson]

I've done my time on the thread. I'm not about to do it again. I am certainly not going to go picking through any other cases that are "identical" to the Knox one.

If I did post to the Thread, I'd just get pecked to death. I don't fancy it.

I hardly read it now. There is one idiot keeping them busy. There are more interesting questions, such as what is the best way to reverse the damage when system gets it excruciatingly wrong. I find that fascinating. After all system will pluck any dolt from obscurity. Ask Amanda.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm not sure it's the same. Are we saying that to have believed in guilt is really akin to believing in magic essences? Lots of people when they first encountered the case when ever it was that the great thread began found guilt plausible based on what was available on the Internet at the time. I have spent time on both guilt and innocence websites. The guilt ones were certainly no less interested in evidence. Presumably at least some people in Italy found the evidence at least somewhat convincing, unless one accepts the great conspiracy, or assumes the lawyers were too incompetent to mount a proper defence.

For what little it's worth, my view is that when a case gets blown up and picked over to the extent that this one has, one has enough material to built up multiple (in this case, I guess two) mutually contradictory views of the case that are satisfying and convincing from the inside.

Look, you have stated that you don't want to discuss the case. I have personally never seen any evidence which indicates guilt. I have asked multiple posters on the string of Amanda Knox threads and on multiple forums and I have gotten nothing.

I would argue that you are committing the middle ground logical fallacy. Because there is another side of an argument, that there is some value in that side.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ironically that post probably belongs on the thread
Let me assure you, it is far easier to prove innocence in these cases than guilt in other cases.
Here are some I know well, chronologically.
Arthur Thomas innocent: found guilty by two juries and two appeal courts. Compensated.
He was home with his wife, and this was easily proved.
Teina Pora, innocent: found guilty by two juries. Exonerated this year by your privy council.
David Bain, innocent: found guilty by one jury, and an appeal court, then not guilty by a jury after your privy council saw through it. The New Zealand government disgracefully continues to shop for a report that denies him compensation.
Scott Watson, innocent: found guilty by one jury, one appeal court, and in jail since. Can not be paroled because he cannot say where he did not dump two bodies.
Mark Lundy, innocent: found guilty by one jury, one appeal court, your privy council saw right through it but ordered another trial where he was found guilty by a dreadful unhinged jury who became psychologists for their task. Cannot be paroled because he won't show remorse for killings of his family by intruders who were seeking financial revenge against him.
Amanda Knox, innocent: found guilty then innocent then guilty then innocent. I hope she takes 69th least corrupt political cesspit Italy to the cleaners.
The proof in her case is exactly as straightforward as the above cases. The patterns are identical. Trust me because I have done the time.

Extrajudicial activism and interference is the only hope for these hapless suckers who all tried to help the police.

Eleven juries to get six people behind bars, all factually innocent.

How about the Norfolk Four. . . .Confessions almost beaten out of them yet they have no physical evidence against them and strong physical evidence against Omar Ballard who claims to have committed the murder alone.

 

[shuttlt]

I would argue that you are committing the middle ground logical fallacy. Because there is another side of an argument, that there is some value in that side.

I disagree. There isn't much middle ground in terms of who is right on the main question. Either Amanda is truly innocent, or she isn't.

Having said that, I think positions that say "the other side has no evidence" is an unnecessarily strong position. There is lots of evidence, it's just that pro-innocence posters reject it all for one reason or another.

 

[Desert Fox]

I disagree. There isn't much middle ground in terms of who is right on the main question. Either Amanda is truly innocent, or she isn't.

Having said that, I think positions that say "the other side has no evidence" is an unnecessarily strong position. There is lots of evidence, it's just that pro-innocence posters reject it all for one reason or another.

Homeopathy has plenty of anecdotal evidence, acupuncture has plenty of poorly controlled studies, etc. I have even debated creationists in the past and they present what they call evidence.

I am a skeptic first and I applied my skeptical tool kit (as I believe that Shermer calls it) and using that tool kit, the evidence of guilt evaporates and I call it "no evidence" based on that just as I do in the previous examples.

 

[shuttlt]

Homeopathy has plenty of anecdotal evidence, acupuncture has plenty of poorly controlled studies, etc. I have even debated creationists in the past and they present what they call evidence.

I am a skeptic first and I applied my skeptical tool kit (as I believe that Shermer calls it) and using that tool kit, the evidence of guilt evaporates and I call it "no evidence" based on that just as I do in the previous examples.

I suspect we will have to agree to differ.

I always focused on small isolated chunks of the case, and took no interest in the big picture. Maybe that accounts for our different perspective?

 

[Metullus]

I disagree. There isn't much middle ground in terms of who is right on the main question. Either Amanda is truly innocent, or she isn't.

Having said that, I think positions that say "the other side has no evidence" is an unnecessarily strong position. There is lots of evidence, it's just that pro-innocence posters reject it all for one reason or another.

I neither know nor care about Knox's factual innocence. Whether or not there is evidence of innocence is, in my view, largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not there is evidence of guilt compelling enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case I do not believe that this was established. This does not mean that there is no evidence of guilt. Evidently in some quarters this makes me no better than a homeopathic alien abductee channeler of Ra, and evil to boot....

 

[Samson]

I suspect we will have to agree to differ.

I always focused on small isolated chunks of the case, and took no interest in the big picture. Maybe that accounts for our different perspective?

I neither know nor care about Knox's factual innocence. Whether or not there is evidence of innocence is, in my view, largely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not there is evidence of guilt compelling enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case I do not believe that this was established. This does not mean that there is no evidence of guilt. Evidently in some quarters this makes me no better than a homeopathic alien abductee channeler of Ra, and evil to boot....

The sole reason for expecting action is certainty. A passing view of the case may seem guilt was not proved, but a closer look tells a very different story. Guilt was impossible. No more likely than reversal of the force of gravity overnight. That is the issue, a remedy becomes mandatory for the safety of everyone.

 

[Spindrift]

The sole reason for expecting action is certainty. A passing view of the case may seem guilt was not proved, but a closer look tells a very different story. Guilt was impossible. No more likely than reversal of the force of gravity overnight. That is the issue, a remedy becomes mandatory for the safety of everyone.

And again with the hyperbole. I fail to see how a case like this is supposed to have such sweeping ramifications.

 

[Metullus]

The sole reason for expecting action is certainty. A passing view of the case may seem guilt was not proved, but a closer look tells a very different story. Guilt was impossible. No more likely than reversal of the force of gravity overnight. That is the issue, a remedy becomes mandatory for the safety of everyone.

Really? You think that proof of innocence should be the standard by which we should judge injustice rather than reasonable doubt? An accused who is convicted with evidence that does not reach the level of beyond a reasonable doubt and for whom there exists no definitive evidence of innocence does not deserve the same support afforded Ms Knox?

 

[shuttlt]

Guilt was impossible. No more likely than reversal of the force of gravity overnight.

If the explanation for guilt being that impossible is short, I'm mildly curious. It's not the stomach contents stuff is it?

 

[tsig]

Erwinl, I am in a difficult locale (read place to avoid circumloqution), my intrerest is process. How do you get innocent people to where they truly belong, to a jail in a far flung place, 28 and a half years seems lenient, when some one else did the crime?
This thread argues, (not me) that that is just fine. DUE PROCESS.
I am intending to answer Loss Leader. I have a few ideas.

Is this some sort of argument by incoherence?