Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

capealadin,

I am still not sure what you mean by drugs. Are you claiming that Amanda used hard drugs (by which I mean cocaine, heroin, etc.) or not? If you are, what is your source of information?

As for cannabis, I believe that it is undisputed that all four flatmates used it. Even Massei implied that he had tried it when he was young. This was during Laura's testimony, IIRC. Its more general acceptance is why people often distinguish between cannabis and other drugs, I believe.

With respect to the evening of November 1st, until roughly 8:40 Amanda thought that she would have to work, and Raffaele thought that he would have to drive Ms. Popovic to retrieve something from a train or bus station, IIRC. Therefore, I would not be surprised if at that point in the evening they had used at most a small quantity of cannabis.

I amm referring to cannabis. At no time did I mention hard drugs, or the drug habit of the other flatmates.

 

[Brooktrout]

About your reading of things, I can't see how you can se a "minute details" assertions like Piazza Grimana is a 5-minutes walk from the cottage, while time minutes can be essential in the case, or you feel as an acceptable quality description one where the cottage is flanked by modern buildings across a noisy road.
Moreover, you may better understand the meaning of this "minute details" if you consider they are not casual. The "apartment buildings" that becomse "modern" in a literary embellishment by Candace, is coincident with a description found in Amanda's diary: descriptions are always 100% compatible with Amanda's diaries, not always with reality. The street becomes "noisy" by the time when Paul Ciolino makes his show to discredit Nara's memory of hearing a scream. This could be the sub-conscious of Candace on work. However it is obviously undermining the quality and professionalism (also ethical) of a coverage: do you think Andrea Vogt would have mistaken Sant' Antonio with Sant'Angelo?
And what do you think about Dempsey's total ignorance of Italian language, culture and law, and her stunning claim of the opposite?

Machiavelli, isn't that a decent description of the setting? Isn't Perugia a city where the modern and the ancient sit side by side? Isn't that a busy road? You haven't said anything to challenge the truthfulness of her descriptions.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

Andrea Vogt wrote about the access to the movie Stardust,

“Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie "Stardust" had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.

"We aren't saying who it was, but you can imagine," said Sollecito's attorney, Luca Maori during a break in the trial, noting that Sollecito left his computer at home and went into police headquarters 21:40 p.m. on November 5 for questioning, leaving the keys to his house with police. He has been in jail ever since…First, defense lawyers claim that the computer interactions while he was at police headquarters may have canceled out important data showing the last known access to files that could have proven he was on his computer the night of the killing.”

The police were at Raffaele's when the file was accessed on the morning of the 6th of November. Yet, Luca Maori won't come right out and say it. Perhaps he was afraid of crossing a line. And we know that this report is accurate, coming from Andrea Vogt, don't we?

You're saying perhaps. And Raffaele's attorney is not saying. What on earth has that got to do with Ghirga saying the trial was fair? HE COULD HAVE SAID NOTHING. Mind reading is not acceptable.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

Andrea Vogt wrote about the access to the movie Stardust,

“Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie "Stardust" had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.

"We aren't saying who it was, but you can imagine," said Sollecito's attorney, Luca Maori during a break in the trial, noting that Sollecito left his computer at home and went into police headquarters 21:40 p.m. on November 5 for questioning, leaving the keys to his house with police. He has been in jail ever since…First, defense lawyers claim that the computer interactions while he was at police headquarters may have canceled out important data showing the last known access to files that could have proven he was on his computer the night of the killing.”

The police were at Raffaele's when the file was accessed on the morning of the 6th of November. Yet, Luca Maori won't come right out and say it. Perhaps he was afraid of crossing a line. And we know that this report is accurate, coming from Andrea Vogt, don't we?

So, who is Andrea saying the *someone is again?* Can you cite that no one else had copies of Raff's keys? Can you name the police who were supposedly there? What time did the police arrive, and what time did they leave? thanks

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>My opinion probably is based on a belief that what we say or do not say here benefits primarily those of us who enjoy discussing with others of comparable interest, a very complex and very controversial pattern of events that is indeed tragic primarily for the loss of a young life, but also as the jurors mentioned the loss of youth through incarceration.

Overall, the impact of our musings here and elsewhere in cyberspace compared to the Courtroom, IMHO goes back to my favorite analogy of the Arkansas hill of beans.

To me, there is a lot of validity to this argument. Having been accused countless times of being Candace Dempsey, I have pointed out repeatedly that people like Candace are much too busy to be reading internet discussions of the case, where she would be likely to come across the same stuff she deleted from her own blog. If she didn't want to read it there, why would she bother to come and read it here? It stands to reason that most active people of influence don't have extra time to spend online.

This position also puts the lie to claims like colonel hall's, that there is "A team of people who could blog 24 hours, spreading the fabrications that sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds." Why spend money on bloggers when the only people reading them are other bloggers?

On the other hand, two posts by halides1 are encouraging. About the Duke Lacrosse case, he wrote:

"The New York Times took his statement very seriously, but the blogosphere pummeled it." (8621)

"Just barely, and only with an admirable effort from the blogosphere, which refused the baloney that the mainstream media all too often ate ravenously." (8655)

Does anyone have any evidence that blogging actually has an influence on public opinion?

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli:
You claim you have a better basis of knowledge - could be - but you claim this without fully knowing what the basis of the judges was, without accessing the evidence and the reports, without having listened to the witnesses.

This is the foolish old chestnut "Massei had access to special evidence we can never know about!" dressed up in a new hat. We have more then enough information to determine that Massei interpreted the DNA evidence incorrectly, that he ignored the forensic evidence by making up his specious story about "improperly tied ligatures" and so forth.

I agree. So much useless and irrelevant information was leaked to the press in order to shape readers' views of the case, that it is impossible to believe the prosecution would withhold anything that would help them and hurt the defense. How many times did guilters argue, "Just wait until the trial!" "Just wait until the closing arguments!" "Just wait until you read the motivations!" In no case did we ever find anything new that bolstered the prosecution's case against Amanda and Raffaele.

ETA: Great concise discussion of science, Kevin.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree. So much useless and irrelevant information was leaked to the press in order to shape readers' view of the case, that it is impossible to believe the prosecution would withhold anything that would help them and hurt the defense. How many times did guilters argue, "Just wait until the trial!" "Just wait until the closing arguments!" "Just wait until you read the motivations!" In no case did we ever find anything new that bolstered the prosecution's case against Amanda and Raffaele.

I have observed that the "secret evidence" appeal is their argument of last resort, when if they really believed it then it would be their argument of first resort.

If they really believed in that argument you could replace everything on PMF, TMJK and every other pro-guilt source with a single banner reading "The court decided it, that settles it, now let's all go home and get on with our lives!". There would be no more to say.

The reality is that guilters are happy to talk until they are blue in the face about all the "evidence" they have implicating Raffaele and Amanda, and quite happy to believe that based on this evidence one can have an informed opinion on those matters. It's only when the evidence exculpating the two comes up and they have run out of other talking points that they retreat to saying "Well I don't care what the evidence says, I'm sure the judges knew all about that evidence and they found them guilty anyway so there!".

Technically it's special pleading: They set up one rule for most of their own discussions ("We can discuss the facts and have a meaningful opinion") then plead for a special exception when they hit a hard bit ("We can never have a meaningful opinion about this, we must defer to the judges").

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You're saying perhaps. And Raffaele's attorney is not saying. What on earth has that got to do with Ghirga saying the trial was fair? HE COULD HAVE SAID NOTHING. Mind reading is not acceptable.

Are you suggesting that Amanda's lawyer is tacitly admitting her guilt?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the foolish old chestnut "Massei had access to special evidence we can never know about!" dressed up in a new hat. We have more then enough information to determine that Massei interpreted the DNA evidence incorrectly, that he ignored the forensic evidence by making up his specious story about "improperly tied ligatures" and so forth.

Actually you only have indirect informtion from the court and from the defence, and you didn't access the evidence nor the reports, not the pictures, nor the autopsy, nor you heared and questioned the witnesses. Anyway one fact is - whatever you think Massei and the court did wrong - the basis of your information is not the same of the courts'. You have less information. You could theoreticaly have a bettr theory, but you should humbly acknowledge that you do not have a better basis, independently from all what the court could get wrong or make up or from their possible lack of common sense. Even if they were total fools, they still have a better access to the facts of the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree. So much useless and irrelevant information was leaked to the press in order to shape readers' views of the case, that it is impossible to believe the prosecution would withhold anything that would help them and hurt the defense. How

It has already been proved that your belief on in "information leaked in order to shape puiblic opinion" is false. I showed how your ideas for example on HIV test had no basis in reality. You don't acknowledge the truth, that nothing indicates that anything was done by the prosecution "to shape public opinion", you use this as an argument in order to support other false arguments, and the seme other fale argument in order to support this one, in a circular system.

 

[RoseMontague]

The text can refer to an implied or unspecified question, not necessarily one of those explicitly mentioned. The sentence, because of the pronoun and the verbal mode chosen, is constructed in a way that is open to include a reference to other possible questions not specified, though it implies that there was "one" important question related to the topic and this is held as "granted" and not specified in the sentence.

That confirms my thinking on this. I appreciate your response.

 

[Machiavelli]

Isn't Perugia a city where the modern and the ancient sit side by side? Isn't that a busy road? You haven't said anything to challenge the truthfulness of her descriptions.

Yes but I am not writing here to demonstrate things and to challenge others' assertions. Some people like to do this, to have a competitive approach and they use the discussion board on the purpose to win for their arguments. I am not demonstrating things, I'm not interested in convincing others, in particular not others who already don't have a neutral attitude. I exact a degree of trust by the reader who wants a respectful dialogue, I'm not interested in a dialogue based on principles of absolute skepticism and distrust. Some people like this competition, but I like to spend my time on other things. If you don't want to believe her comments on her understanding of Italian are a nonsense crazy boasting, and don't believe my reasons for total distrust, it's your buisness.

Candace doen't say "Perugia a city where the modern and the ancient sit side by side", she says S. Antonio road is flakned by modern apartments built by developers. Those apartment blocks were built between '600 and '700, and the one building with most recent revamping dates back to the end of 1800. No it is not a busy road. The road is deserted especially at night and on holidays.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually you only have indirect informtion from the court and from the defence, and you didn't access the evidence nor the reports, not the pictures, nor the autopsy, nor you heared and questioned the witnesses. Anyway one fact is - whatever you think Massei and the court did wrong - the basis of your information is not the same of the courts'. You have less information. You could theoreticaly have a bettr theory, but you should humbly acknowledge that you do not have a better basis, independently from all what the court could get wrong or make up or from their possible lack of common sense. Even if they were total fools, they still have a better access to the facts of the case.

Actually even this is nonsense: Most of the "nineteen judges" has worse access to relevant information than we do now because they were being fed information we now know to be false or misleading.

As for whether Massei and the court had a "better basis", an obvious counterexample would be the knowledge about t(lag) and digestion times we have access to which Massei and the other judges/jurors were manifestly ignorant of. They had some pieces of information we do not, but they were also ignorant of vital pieces of information which we have. Overall I think it would be false humility to pretend that I do not have a better position from which to judge this case, in terms of both facts and faculties, than they did.

 

[Machiavelli]

You believe she is lying when she says she could understand Giacomo. A strange thing to lie about, don't you think. Ultimately, however, you have no proof that Candace could not understand Giacomo. How do you know Giacomo was not raised in Southern Italy and later moved to Marche?

Malkmus, the statement by Candace is crazy, it's lunar. It's a strange thing to lie about, but the whole Candace's book and blog and career are strange things, I've never said Candace is not strange. I wonder why she falsified her bio to cut 20 years off her age, and when she was discovered she claimed it was a typo, repeating in two diffeent texts. There is no reason to lie on this, but she gave false information on this unrelated detail. Giacomo is native from Marche and speaks Itlian with an unmistakable Marche accent that you may not confuse with a Calabrian accent, he has this cute pattern of speech that resembles more Spanish than Calabrian, and I also told Candace about his. I am talking of people whom I listened to, I recognize his voice. Giulia Bongiorno has a definite southern accent, and sometimes she used some peculiarities of language use that determined very intresting situations in cross-questioning witnesses.

 

[Machiavelli]

As for whether Massei and the court had a "better basis", an obvious counterexample would be the knowledge about t(lag) and digestion times we have access to which Massei and the other judges/jurors were manifestly ignorant of. They had some pieces of information we do not, but they were also ignorant of vital pieces of information which we have.

Actually, as I said, the only information you claim you have in addition is your conclusion as the result of your personal path of research. A conclusion which was driven not only by your personal choice of what to search and what not to search in literature, from a position devoid of medical culture and expertise, but had, as its essential basis, the introduction data you derived from infrmation filtered by the court and the defense, and also by altering it (for example, the discontinuous meal assumed from 18:00 to 20:00 as defined by defence expert Bacci, in your definition becomes a meal ingested betwen 18:00 and 18:30), while you don't have access to the actual source of information.

 

[RoseMontague]

Dr. Waterbury has Part II in his series posted. This one is called The Elephant in the Room:

http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/10/elephant-in-room.html

My only concern is his choice of Through the Looking Glass rather than Moby Dick to make his points about the Motivation's reasoning. I did find one quote from Through the Looking Glass that is a good example however:

The Queen:

Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Hard to say which is a better choice of literary works. I am still partial to mine however:

"Come, Ahab’s compliments to ye; come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents’ beds, unerringly I rush! Naught’s an obstacle, naught’s an angle to the iron way!"

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, as I said, the only information you claim you have in addition is your conclusion as the result of your personal path of research. A conclusion which was driven not only by your personal choice of what to search and what not to search in literature, from a position devoid of medical culture and expertise, but had, as its essential basis, the introduction data you derived from infrmation filtered by the court and the defense, and also by altering it (for example, the discontinuous meal assumed from 18:00 to 20:00 as defined by defence expert Bacci, in your definition becomes a meal ingested betwen 18:00 and 18:30), while you don't have access to the actual source of information.

This seems to me the 'they have information we don't' argument again. We do know that both Sophie and Amy said they ate around 6PM. We also know that it is the start of the meal that is important in starting the measurement on the stomach contents. Your statement implies that there exists some testimony that for some very strange reason has not been introduced in any of the reports or accounts of testimony that I have seen that would indicate Meredith for some reason did not eat at the same time the rest of them ate.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes but I am not writing here to demonstrate things and to challenge others' assertions. Some people like to do this, to have a competitive approach and they use the discussion board on the purpose to win for their arguments. I am not demonstrating things, I'm not interested in convincing others, in particular not others who already don't have a neutral attitude. I exact a degree of trust by the reader who wants a respectful dialogue, I'm not interested in a dialogue based on principles of absolute skepticism and distrust. Some people like this competition, but I like to spend my time on other things. If you don't want to believe her comments on her understanding of Italian are a nonsense crazy boasting, and don't believe my reasons for total distrust, it's your buisness.

Interesting ploy on this board. By making the argument about himself, any attack against the argument is an attack against the arguer and therefore a violation of the local rules.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Dr. Waterbury has Part II in his series posted. This one is called The Elephant in the Room:

http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/10/elephant-in-room.html

Thanks for the heads up, RoseMontague!

I like how strong and straightforward Waterbury is in his conclusions.
We're often delving in details quite peripheral to the case. Stepping back and looking on the entirety is very needed. It restores proportions and brings back reason and common sense.

While catching up I noticed that the first part you posted got by very quietly and without discussion.
So was the Quintavalle post of yours, in my opinion another strong blow to his (long nonexistent) credibility. It's interesting that the colpevolisti apparently dropped Quintavalle and are not willing to defend him anymore. Looks like they are gradually stepping away from the Massei narrative, as it dawns on them how indefensible it is.

As for the fake break-in both Waterbury and Hendry noticed how central it is to the whole prosecution case. It truly is a cornerstone, a foundation without which it all falls apart. It's astonishing how speculative the arguments backing the fake break-in are, and how much mental gymnastics Massei needed to go through to stabilize that flimsy basis for his verdict.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, as I said, the only information you claim you have in addition is your conclusion as the result of your personal path of research. A conclusion which was driven not only by your personal choice of what to search and what not to search in literature

If you are accusing me of choosing not to search for or read relevant literature, then I think you owe it to us all and to yourself to back that accusation up or retract it and apologise.

, from a position devoid of medical culture and expertise,

Again, nice try, but it's not going to work. You have no idea what my scientific or medical background is, any more than you know how much I know about juggling, hamster farming or the Ukrainian economy. My arguments and evidence stand by themselves.

In any case, how do you think you could tell if I had medical culture or expertise? Are you claiming some such expertise of your own, or was that just a completely unfounded insult?

but had, as its essential basis, the introduction data you derived from infrmation filtered by the court and the defense, and also by altering it (for example, the discontinuous meal assumed from 18:00 to 20:00 as defined by defence expert Bacci, in your definition becomes a meal ingested betwen 18:00 and 18:30),

Bacci got it wrong, as we demonstrated by citing the statements of the relevant witnesses and verifying the length of time it takes to watch The Notebook. That is schoolchild-level maths, not a matter of opinion.

If Bacci thought that possible 8pm crumble somehow delayed the transition of the pizza to the duodenum to the extent where t(lag) could plausibly equal five hours, once again he was simply wrong.

So accusing us of "altering" the data as opposed to correcting it is also misplaced.

while you don't have access to the actual source of information.

As I said, while we in some cases lack information they had, in some very important cases they lacked information we have. It more than balances out in our favour.