Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

There is a reason why so many people are agnostic. It is foolish to insist God does not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Agnostics are actually atheists who admit they could be wrong.

But this is an intellectually-inappropriate position to take.

Example (deliberately extreme, to illustrate the point): suppose I say to you that I saw a live purple unicorn flying across the sky above my house today. You could choose an agnostic position and say that it's foolish to insist that flying purple unicorns do not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Or you could take a sceptical position along the lines that science and history strongly support a POV that flying purple unicorns do not exist, and that therefore you refuse to accept my belief unless and until you show me (or I find elsewhere) credible, reliable evidence of the existence of flying purple unicorns.

The latter would be the better position to adopt, from an intellectual and metaphysical perspective.

But this is now straying away from the topic of the Knox/Sollecito trials: suffice it to say that this issue has parallels to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - the appropriate and correct position (at all levels: legal, ethical and moral) to adopt is that a person must be presumed innocent of a crime until and unless they are found guilty in a legitimate trial (note that one can be presumed innocent and suspected at the same time.....). And I believe the Italian police and PM, the Massei court, and large sections of the media (as well as the vast majority of pro-guilt commentators) threw away this doctrine in an improper and inappropriate manner during the investigation and trial process of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Grinder]

And I don't know how Grinder gets off (not for the first time) totally misrepresenting my position. In this instance he incorrectly states my position to be that "since a person is presumed innocent during the legal process if they are not found guilty that translates into being innocent". I said nothing of the sort. Ever. I stated clearly and unequivocally that if a person is found not guilty at trial then they preserve the PRESUMPTION of innocence. Not that this "translates into being innocent". It translates into nothing more or less than the presumption of innocence - Grinder appears to have enormous difficulty understanding and recognising the word (and the concept behind the word) "presumption".

And in the case of any analysis of the Knox/Sollecito case, any judicial analysis (and, for that matter, any ethical analysis) must go far further than (for example) any analysis of a religious faith. In the case of faith, one must start as a true agnostic and be guided by the evidence (and lack of evidence). When looking at the Knox/Sollecito case, however, one must (for very sound reasons which have been expanded upon several times before in these threads) start with a presumption of innocence, and the sum of the evidence (and lack of evidence) must be tested against the innocence scenario - if it's compatible with an innocence scenario then this MUST be the conclusion.

So if the evidence or lack of it is compatible with the innocence scenario (whatever that means) then this must be the conclusion. Not against the presumed innocence scenario which would only mean not guilty BARD.

P.o.I. is a legal not ethical mechanism.

 

[acbytesla]

But this is an intellectually-inappropriate position to take.

Example (deliberately extreme, to illustrate the point): suppose I say to you that I saw a live purple unicorn flying across the sky above my house today. You could choose an agnostic position and say that it's foolish to insist that flying purple unicorns do not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Or you could take a sceptical position along the lines that science and history strongly support a POV that flying purple unicorns do not exist, and that therefore you refuse to accept my belief unless and until you show me (or I find elsewhere) credible, reliable evidence of the existence of flying purple unicorns.

The latter would be the better position to adopt, from an intellectual and metaphysical perspective.

But this is now straying away from the topic of the Knox/Sollecito trials: suffice it to say that this issue has parallels to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - the appropriate and correct position (at all levels: legal, ethical and moral) to adopt is that a person must be presumed innocent of a crime until and unless they are found guilty in a legitimate trial (note that one can be presumed innocent and suspected at the same time.....). And I believe the Italian police and PM, the Massei court, and large sections of the media (as well as the vast majority of pro-guilt commentators) threw away this doctrine in an improper and inappropriate manner during the investigation and trial process of Knox and Sollecito.

I'm sorry LJ, I was trying to use the comparison for that reason and show the similarities to theistic arguments. Sorry to spin us off into left field. Mea Culpa.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm sorry LJ, I was trying to use the comparison for that reason and show the similarities to theistic arguments. Sorry to spin us off into left field. Mea Culpa.

No no not at all I think the discussion is relevant to the case, since it deals with the higher matter of faith vs evidence-based proof. But I wanted to try to ensure that the thread didn't digress into a full-on debate about religious faith - since that might be viewed from the outside as off-topic. No probs though ))

 

[Vixen]

I stopped arguing the case with you a very long time ago because you don't argue in good faith. The discussion is inherently dishonest. Your recent post about the menstrual blood is emblematic on how you approach this. You make general citations usually only after prodding. Then you offer a cite like Darkness Descending instead of the court case sometimes but not always you'll provide a specific location. And then others knowing of your deceptive techniques they investigate and find that your cite is a total fabrication. You'll excuse me if I refuse to chase my tail refuting these wild fabrications.
What kind of absurd nonsense is that? That delusional thinking takes place in another location of the brain does not validate your claims that God exists and that Christian ideology is correct.


I can't speak for all atheists, but most atheists in fact don't use circular reasoning. No, it's not that there isn't a God but that there is no credible evidence that there is. Most believe that extraordinary claims like there is an all knowing all powerful God that we must believe in or else suffer eternal torture requires extraordinary evidence.
That is not circular reasoning. It's simply a need for arguments to be supported by evidence. It's kind of like how I approach this case. I require evidence of guilt, not intuition.

Circular reasoning is this. We know that Christ was the son of God because it's in the Bible and how do we know that is true? Because it is in the Bible.

There is scant evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ and absolutely none that he was the son of the creator of the Universe. As I said earlier, if you can provide evidence that JC was son of the creator I will change my mind.

Historians found proof Pontius Pilate did exist and respected historic commentator Jospehus confirms Jesus' existence.

Darkness Descending is a perfectly respectable citation. Your claiming Stefanoni was/is as bent as a nine Euro note is the crazy illogical lazy thinking to explain away the kids' clear presence at the murder scene.

 

[Vixen]

Please quote and cite where Amanda or "the PR machine" claimed she was "tortured", "starved" and "beaten by the police".

What they have said is that Amanda was smacked on the back of the head a couple times. That is not a claim of being "tortured" or "beaten". She claims she was given nothing to eat or drink until she had signed those statements. That is not being "starved". Overzealous and exaggerating PIP may have claimed those things but that is not Amanda or G-M.

Now, Lumumba, on the other hand, DID claim he was punched, kicked, slapped on the head, denied food or water, threatened, etc. Hmmmm....

Amanda gave testimony of what she did that night, so why you make that claim, I have no idea.
Defendants often don't take the stand but it has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. Guilty people often take the stand and testify while innocent people often do not. You are just reading into that what supports your bias.

Her lawyers submitted a claim under Article 3: Torture to the ECHR.

 

[bagels]

Vixen the reason modern civil democracies have laws against degrading and oppressive treatment, physical abuse, psychological abuse, right to silence laws, etc, is not just because it's a moral high road, but because it aids the police and prosecutors in doing their job of actually arresting and convicting the right people.

The PGP do not care that the police beat a statement out of Amanda, they not only have no sympathy, they don't see it as an investigative failure, because they know in their hearts she is guilty.

Every item of probative value has been blown away:

-The bloodfree knife that didn't match the wounds or imprint is history.
-The alleged witnesses were demolished on cross examination and re-examination, both themselves admitting when first questioned they saw nothing.
-The conviction was permanently abolished.
-The interrogation was recently ruled coercive and procedurally flawed.

There is absolutely nothing left to stand on from a PGP perspective. And yet many remain, unphased, as the ECHR approaches, with a ruling on the final remaining slander conviction most of us can now safely guess.

I used to think once the ECHR demolished the last remaining vestige the PGP response would be more mafia or state department influence, but glancing at PMF I now have a preview of what to expect. The very right to silence is now said to be a significant hindrance to crime fighting that ought to be done away with.

You people can't even see that you're consumed and obsessed with Amanda Knox beyond any reason or logic. She is guilty no matter what for you, it's an emotional stance. I find it interesting, more interesting than 911 truthers.

Oh well.

 

[Vixen]

I like to ask if they believe Islam or Buddhism or the thousand other religions? They almost always answer "of course not"

I then reply that our beliefs are really not that far apart. they are atheists for 999 religions, I'm an atheist for just one more.

The verdict in this case and others offer a similar corollary. Every defendant who stands accused walks into a courtroom with no burden of proof. Neither Amanda or Raffaele need prove they are innocent. They don't actually have to prove anything. It is the one who claims there is a God or claims that Amanda or Raffaele are guilty that must present a case with evidence to support their claim. As an atheist, I'm not the defense in the case, I'm more the jury that determined that the claim did not fulfill the necessary burden of proof. My verdict is not that they are innocent but that they are not guilty. Christians like the PGP are always trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm not arguing there isn't a God, that would put the burden of proof on me. No, I'm simply demanding that those who say that there is one particularly one who's laws they like to integrate into all of society require evidence.

Nonsense. Being believer in one religion, does not make you an atheist to other religions. An Atheist (note the prefix-'A', which signifies 'lacking') believes in no God at all. Period.


I would say, the majority of PGP are almost certainly as atheist as you are.

A perfectly fair, independent trial found the pair to be both guilty, despite Massei desperately bending over backward to find mitigation.

The only reason they were acquitted was because of defense pyrotechnics which went to extraordinary lengths to cast doubt. The scientific factual evidence shows without a shadow of a doubt the pair were involved in the murder, and even Bruno-Maresca spell this out.

 

[Vixen]

Why should anyone have to make an argument for their innocence. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence. It's up to you to make a sincere and honest argument for their guilt.

In truth, despite the best efforts of the police to destroy it, there was significant evidence that they were at Raffaele's at a time when Meredith was likely dying or dead already. And don't forget Guede himself said Amanda had nothing to do with it.

- An alibi with multiple elements of evidence to support it
- Absolutely no evidence of their involvement
- No motive
- The one person who undeniably was present at the murder stated Amanda had nothing to do with it.

Why is this not good enough for you?

They went to trial, as is the defendant's right under habeus corpus, and the onus was on the prosecution for the state (the victim) to present and prove their case. This they did. Verdict :Guilty. Appeal Court; Verdict upheld.

It is in fact, the Supreme Court who dodged due legal process, triggered by the egregious behaviour of Hellmann. Once the pair had been let loose, they weren't going to return.

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

That's nonsense. Firstly, Mr A needs to report the crime. Next forensics will examine said wallet for fingerprints/DNA and question Mr B and Mr C.

Only if there is reason to believe B or C did it, will they be told of their rights and formally charged.

 

[Numbers]

Her lawyers submitted a claim under Article 3: Torture to the ECHR.

This statement in Vixen's post is a half-truth not unexpected from someone with an agenda whose posts do not report actual truths or bother with accurate references. It implies that Amanda Knox and her lawyers are exaggerating the degree of mistreatment that they allege the police administered during the interrogation. There is no known statement from Knox or her lawyers alleging that Knox was tortured.

The full text of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a PDF may be found from a link on:

http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer

The whole text of Article 3 is:

Article 3. Prohibition of Torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

A review of the ECHR case-law indicates that the treatment described by Amanda Knox in her Memoriale I and her court testimony would likely fall under "inhuman or degrading treatment".

A case-law reference (one of many relevant ones) is Bouyid v. Belgium 23880/09 [GC], in which the ECHR found that police slapping, without reasonable justification, of two individuals who were at a police station, amounted to degrading treatment.

Here is a quotation from the legal summary of the Bouyid case:

The Court emphasised that the administration of a slap by a police officer to a person who is completely under his control constitutes a serious attack on the latter’s dignity.

A slap to the face has a considerable impact on the person receiving it, because it affects the part of the person’s body which expresses his individuality, manifests his social identity and constitutes the centre of his senses – sight, speech and hearing – which are used for communication with others.

Given that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes for there to have been degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3, a slap – even if it is isolated, not premeditated and devoid of any serious or lasting effect on the person receiving it – may be perceived as a humiliation by the person receiving it.

When the slap is administered by police officers to individuals who are under their control, it highlights the superiority/inferiority relationship. The fact that the victims know that such an act is unlawful, constitutes a breach of moral and professional ethics by the officers and is unacceptable, may furthermore arouse in them a feeling of arbitrary treatment, injustice and powerlessness.

Moreover, persons who are held in police custody or are even simply taken or summoned to a police station for an identity check or questioning – as in the applicants’ case – and more broadly all persons under the control of the police or a similar authority, are in a situation of vulnerability. The authorities who are under a duty to protect them flout this duty by inflicting the humiliation of a slap.

The fact that the slap may have been administered thoughtlessly by an officer who was exasperated by the victim’s disrespectful or provocative conduct was irrelevant. The Grand Chamber therefore departed from the Chamber’s approach on this point. The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned. In a democratic society ill-treatment is never an appropriate response to problems facing the authorities. The police, specifically, must “not inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under any circumstances” (European Code of Police Ethics). Furthermore, Article 3 of the Convention imposes a positive obligation on the State to train its law-enforcement officials in such a manner as to ensure their high level of competence in their professional conduct so that no one is subjected to torture or treatment that runs counter to that provision.

Lastly, the first applicant had been a minor at the material time. It is vital for law-enforcement officers who are in contact with minors in the exercise of their duties to take due account of the vulnerability inherent in their young age. Police behaviour towards minors may be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention simply because they are minors, whereas it might be deemed acceptable in the case of adults. Therefore, law-enforcement officers must show greater vigilance and self-control when dealing with minors.

In conclusion, the slap administered to each of the applicants by the police officers while they were under their control in the police station did not correspond to recourse to physical force that had been made strictly necessary by their conduct, and had thus diminished their dignity.

Given that the applicants referred only to minor bodily injuries and had not demonstrated that they had undergone serious physical or mental suffering, the treatment in question could not be described as inhuman or, a fortiori, torture. The Court therefore found that the present case involved degrading treatment.

 

[Stacyhs]

I would agree and disagree with your post. It depends on what you mean by arguing. Talking past each other or simply opposing them, yes that is useless. I've learned that there is a way to discuss the questions of religion that sometimes they cannot justify their beliefs even to themselves. This of course is with a small minority that actually keep their minds open. You don't argue that there is no God but through questions they come to Jesus on their own. It is more of an epistemological conversation as much as anything.

True. I find religion fascinating, both the history and psychology of it.

At a book club meeting several years ago we were discussing "The da Vinci Code". The possibility of Jesus having a wife and children, especially in light of the evolution of Mary Magdalene from disciple to concubine to prostitute, opened up a discussion of Jesus being just a man. It was an intellectual discussion of possibility, not of fact. But one member kept quiet until she started crying and said, "No one is going to take Jesus away from me!" We were all shocked speechless as no one had attempted any such thing. But the mere discussion of Jesus' possible non-divinity was so threatening to this member that she couldn't handle it. As Mr. Spock would say "Fascinating".

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[bagels]

Why cannot Amanda and Raff ever prove their innocence? Think about it.

Because the crime occurred later in the evening when they were home by themselves?

It's too bad they didn't have the foresight to hike over to the local 7-11 and stand in front of its CCTV camera for 4 hours holding up a sign saying "we're not murdering anyone atm"

 

[Vixen]

Here - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2009-06-12_Eng.pdf

Vixen this is day one and includes Maresca's questions - nothing to do with callunia.

OK, my source was wrong. Fair enough.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is a reason why so many people are agnostic. It is foolish to insist God does not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Agnostics are actually atheists who admit they could be wrong.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheists do not believe in God. But not believing in something is not necessarily saying it absolutely doesn't exist. I do not believe there is a God, but I certainly can't say I KNOW there is no God. No one actually KNOWS whether there is or is not a God despite their claims to know. What they have is a BELIEF, not a knowledge.

Personally, I think most agnostics are atheists who are not quite ready to declare themselves non-believers publicly, or even privately, due to societal pressures. Being an atheist in some parts of the world is tantamount to inviting social/professional ostracism. In extreme cases, it's legally punishable as it's considered heresy.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[acbytesla]

Historians found proof Pontius Pilate did exist and respected historic commentator Jospehus confirms Jesus' existence.

Darkness Descending is a perfectly respectable citation. Your claiming Stefanoni was/is as bent as a nine Euro note is the crazy illogical lazy thinking to explain away the kids' clear presence at the murder scene.

So did Herod, so did Julius Caesar, so did Alexander the Great. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. His Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 to 94 AD 60 years after the supposed crucifixion. There is nothing written to confirm Jesus's existence even within 40 years of his death. Still, even if you could prove that this man lived and was crucified it still wouldn't support the claim that he was the son of God.

I'd disagree with you that Darkness Descending is appropriate. Still, it wasn't even in Darkness Descending. You don't provide a quote and maybe a page number so anyone can confirm its veracity. You have been practicing the Gish Gallop in written form. I'd recommend that everyone look up that term and see if they might agree with that assessment.

 

[Stacyhs]

Her lawyers submitted a claim under Article 3: Torture to the ECHR.

"Article 3 – Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ECHR


You simply never learn, do you? Making claims that are so easily refuted with facts supported by quotes and citations doesn't work with anyone with a knowledge of this case. Your tactics might work on Twitter with the less informed, but not on us. They are as unsuccessful and dishonest as photoshopped images of Amanda claiming she's "in a cruelty to dogs row" and that she "abandons rescue dog with 'cut paws'".

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think referring to the masses is a good argument. The masses never read good literature, listen to good music, appreciate art: does that mean those of us who do, are 'in the wrong' because they form a minority?

How on earth am I "referring to the masses"?