Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I read the original post. I understand that the usual defense narrative places Rudy on the crapper when Meredith arrives home. However, as I've laid out, I reject the narrative in this particular instance, because in my experience it makes absolutely no sense. To my mind, there's no way that, within a few moments of breaking in and tearing the place apart, Rudy stops to take a dump.

Someone who's concerned enough about being caught to kill the only witness to their crime is not someone I see non-chalantly interrupting a B&E for a bathroom break.

That's a totally different subject. Why (again) do you think that the would-be burglar (Guede, for the sake of argument) would have to be in Filomena's room if he had broken off his burglary to visit the bathroom?

Your words again, to remind you:

"Moreover, using the bathroom first would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home."

 

[LondonJohn]

I would say that it's not impossible (thus plausible) but I do have difficulty accepting that it's reasonable. I'd need a little more data then that before I'm ready to make that leap.

What data would you need?

 

[Matthew Best]

Matthew, light hearted response.
Light hearted response, Matthew.

Glad that the two of you could finally meet.

Ah! The old "I was only joking" defence. Nicely played, sir.

 

[Fuji]

That's a totally different subject. Why (again) do you think that the would-be burglar (Guede, for the sake of argument) would have to be in Filomena's room if he had broken off his burglary to visit the bathroom?

I don't.

Your words again, to remind you:

"Moreover, using the bathroom first would place him in Filomena's room when Meredith arrived home."

Exactly.

There are only two rooms where Rudy is likely to be when Meredith returns home: Filomena's room or the "big bathroom". If he is in the bathroom when Meredith arrives home, then in all likelihood, he has already searched Filomena's room. However, as I've said several times now, I find it ridiculous to believe that Rudy interrupted his search for a bathroom break. Especially so if you consider the rumors of his previous burglaries, one of which he was allegedly caught at the scene, to be true.

On the other hand, if he is in Filomena's bedroom when Meredith returns, then he has presumably already used the bathroom. However, that leaves two other unanswered questions: 1) If he wasn't interrupted on the toilet, then why didn't he flush?, and 2) Why not simply go back out the window you just entered, to escape with the highest probablity of not being discovered?

 

[katy_did]

Or verbosity...

On that subject, I don't hear many verbosity-related complaints in relation to the 400-page Massei report (which, in addition, appears to have been written in arcane, archaic and inaccessible language). I wonder why not?

I remember reading the section of the report about the computer activity/cell phone records, which IIRC ends with Massei saying something like, "In summary, there is nothing to prove that Knox and Sollecito did not leave the apartment during the time the crime was committed".

And I thought, well if he's gonna run through all the evidence that doesn't prove they didn't commit the crime, no wonder the whole thing is so damn long...

 

[Matthew Best]

as I've said several times now, I find it ridiculous to believe that Rudy interrupted his search for a bathroom break.

Ah. The old argument from incredulity again. Nicely played, sir.

 

[Amazer]

Ah! The old "I was only joking" defence. Nicely played, sir.

I would have thought that was a dead give away.

 

[katy_did]

Ah yes, the very reliable 11.30pm scream. That blows the whole theory apart. Oh, no, wait........

The interesting thing about the incredibly piercing, 'never heard before except-in-the-movies' scream (a revealing comment from Nara there if ever there was one) is that the people in the broken down car were outside the cottage between about 10.30 and 11.40, yet not only did they not hear a scream, they didn't hear or see anything or anyone coming and going at the cottage - no lights were on, no noise was heard, no one came or left, and the gate was open the whole time.

Yet apparently Nara heard a piercing Picnic-at-Hanging-Rock style scream at 11.30, and we know the phones were in the garden of the house by midnight...

 

[Amazer]

What data would you need?

Anything that would indicate that Rudy suffers from fear induced bowel movement. Could be from his unofficial/suspected earlier B&E's, any other situation where he would be fearful, whatever else you can think of that would establish that fact to some degree.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah. The old argument from incredulity again. Nicely played, sir.

I like debating this case. I like being challenged on my opinions and interpretations. But only by people who understand the basic rules of argument. Without rules, there is no real point in having an argument at all. After all, in a no-rules environment, there's nothing to stop me from responding to your argument that "A implies B" with "It's not true that C implies D, and anyway, B actually implies E. So nuh, nuh, na nuhhhh nuhhhhhhhh"....

 

[LondonJohn]

Anything that would indicate that Rudy suffers from fear induced bowel movement. Could be from his unofficial/suspected earlier B&E's, any other situation where he would be fearful, whatever else you can think of that would establish that fact to some degree.

Why would it need to be shown that this physiological reaction occurred to Guede each and every time he was in a similar situation? And how similarly could the situations be compared anyway? Were the other windows that he (allegedly) broke in through in full view of a major road? Was it possible that he'd fear immediate confrontation upon entering a darkened office building well outside of office hours? Had he always eaten at the same time before each of these break-and-enterings?

 

[Amazer]

Why would it need to be shown that this physiological reaction occurred to Guede each and every time he was in a similar situation? And how similarly could the situations be compared anyway? Were the other windows that he (allegedly) broke in through in full view of a major road? Was it possible that he'd fear immediate confrontation upon entering a darkened office building well outside of office hours? Had he always eaten at the same time before each of these break-and-enterings?

Why so difficult?

What is Rudy afraid of? It could be darkness, heights, spiders, flying, etc. And what is the usual reaction after being exposed to something he's afraid of?
That should do the trick of establishing whether Rudy is prone to fear induced bowel movement.

 

[Fuji]

Ah. The old argument from incredulity again. Nicely played, sir.

I do not think so.

According to Wikipedia, argument from incredulity is understood as:

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be true) therefore P must be false.
2. It's obvious that P (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or obvious and yet still be false.

I conede that Rudy could have interrupted the burglary to use the bathroom. However, I find that very hard to believe - incredible, if you will. Nevertheless, my concession means that, formally speaking, I am not arguing from incredulity. Certainly not as much as those who dismiss the prosecution narrative that all three were involved with the murder on the grounds of its purported implausibility.

 

[Supernaut]

Please explain. Under what circumstances is it not peculiar that a burglar ransacks a room but fails to take anything of value?

Maybe after they've unexpectedly ambushed and murdered a resident and realised (despite being not too bright) that anything tracable will then be sought as clues in a murder-manhunt? Nah.

Anyway, it is by no means certain that Filomina's room was "ransacked".

Filomina may simply be a messy individual, and she may have hurriedly checked for missing items when she rushed into her room to retrieve her laptop - [sarcasm] which is perfectly understandable behaviour, notwithstanding the dead flatmate in another room.[/sarcasm].

 

[Fuji]

I like debating this case. I like being challenged on my opinions and interpretations. But only by people who understand the basic rules of argument. Without rules, there is no real point in having an argument at all. After all, in a no-rules environment, there's nothing to stop me from responding to your argument that "A implies B" with "It's not true that C implies D, and anyway, B actually implies E. So nuh, nuh, na nuhhhh nuhhhhhhhh"....

It appears from context that you are referring to my arguments. Where have I demonstrated that I do not "understand the basic rules of argument"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why so difficult?

What is Rudy afraid of? It could be darkness, heights, spiders, flying, etc. And what is the usual reaction after being exposed to something he's afraid of?
That should do the trick of establishing whether Rudy is prone to fear induced bowel movement.

I think you're assuming levels of individual psychiatric/psychological analysis that are beyond the realms of those disciplines.

All that the defence would need to show (if this formed part of any "alternative hypothesis" element to the appeal) is that a) there is a proven psychological-physiological link between heightened fear and bowel motion; b) it's reasonable to suggest that Guede was in such a heightened state as he made his entrance through the broken window into Filomena's room; c) this could reasonably have manifested itself in Guede needing to defecate very shortly after climbing into Filomena's bedroom. Nothing more than that would be necessary.

Again, I think you might be confusing the very high burden of proof placed upon the prosecution with the far lesser burden of "reasonable possibility" placed upon the defence.

 

[katy_did]

And, as I stated before, I find it highly dubious that any burglar would break off a search for valuables right after breaking into a house (as far as I know, Filomena's room is the only room that shows signs of ransacking - this implies that the burglar had only just begun his "job") to use the toilet. Ridiculous, even.

So, you only think it plausible that Rudy might have taken a well-earned bathroom break after a good hour, say, of energetically ransacking the house? I'm tempted to repeat your last sentence...

Burglars do all manner of things when breaking and entering a property. It's often how they get caught. For example:

Rodney Stearns, 53, defecated in a burglarized home and police found his DNA on hand towels he used in the bathroom. He is serving two eight-year prison sentences.

Roilen Ivester was placed on five years probation after his saliva was found on a tuna fish sandwich he bit into in the kitchen of a home he broke into.

David Cropper, 40, was convicted after his DNA was found in the hair of a comb left at a burglary scene. He is serving a 30-year sentence.

David L. Weller, 50, and his wife, Dina Weller, 44, are serving 36-year prison sentences after their DNA was found on a cigarette butt discovered in a home they burglarized.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do not think so.

According to Wikipedia, argument from incredulity is understood as:



I conede that Rudy could have interrupted the burglary to use the bathroom. However, I find that very hard to believe - incredible, if you will. Nevertheless, my concession means that, formally speaking, I am not arguing from incredulity. Certainly not as much as those who dismiss the prosecution narrative that all three were involved with the murder on the grounds of its purported implausibility.

I'd like to deconstruct your argument here, if I may.

You start by quoting the Wikipedia entry on "argument from incredulity", which states (correctly) that one form of this argument is:
1. P is too incredible (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be true) therefore P must be false.
Next - directly below this quote, you say this (in relation to Guede temporarily abandoning the "burglary" to go and defecate):

"However, I find that very hard to believe - incredible, if you will."

(And this corresponds with earlier statements by you, including:

"I find it ridiculous to believe that Rudy interrupted his search for a bathroom break", and "To my mind, there's no way that, within a few moments of breaking in and tearing the place apart, Rudy stops to take a dump.")

You then say

"Nevertheless, my concession means that, formally speaking, I am not arguing from incredulity"
So, if I understand correctly, your position is that you're saying that

1) Guede can't have visited the bathroom to defecate shortly after entering Filomena's room through the broken window, because this idea is ridiculous/unbelievable/incredible.

2) This is not an argument from incredulity.

 

[LondonJohn]

It appears from context that you are referring to my arguments. Where have I demonstrated that I do not "understand the basic rules of argument"?

Well, it applies to a whole host of posters on here. But - without wanting to get personal - yes, you argued from incredulity (in my opinion), so you argued "outside the rules".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see, along with Curatolo and Quintavalle , another "rubbish" witness. The court didn`t only get it wrong with one witness, it got it wrong with even three witnesses.

Do you think there are any reasonable grounds for questioning the accuracy of the statements made by any of those three witnesses?