Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Second, an even more serious logical criticism is that there is also implied an argument from incredulity. Even given an encyclopedic knowledge of the totality of all murder cases and consequently the knowledge that a parallel instance of the Kercher murder case does not actually exist, this by no means necessarily dictates that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

Good point. Perhaps I should present this argument in terms of Occams Razor. A lone wolf precedent like the Craigslist killer fits better. In a case with no bloody fingerprint (other than that of Guede) and no eye witnesses, the simplest and most plausible answer is the most likely. This case is about probabilities NOT possibilities.

 

[Mary_H]

While the innocent-Amanda would have made this call spontaneously when the level of concern reached the point where the mothers support was needed, the guilty-Amanda would have had to specifically create a need to call her mother at a that time. It is therefore compelling that the guilty-Amanda would be more likely to remember the call than the innocent-Amanda and I expect now to see the pro-guilt faction claiming that the guilty-Amanda would have to fake that she forgot making that call in order to be believed innocent.<snip>

But none of what Amanda did or said from the night of the murder to the day of her testimony in court can explain Edda's questioning of this call in the prison cell on the 10th.

I agree, Dan.

What I am curious about is the answer Comodi thought she might get from Amanda on the stand, had Amanda actually made a call to her mother "before anything had happened." Maybe she thought Amanda would say, "Well, I had just finished the clean-up, taken my shower, and was about to go over and get Raffaele at his place. I was feeling a sense of accomplishment, so I thought I'd call Mom and share it with her."

 

[Mary_H]

It's fine but I think you missed my intent ; when I use 'evidence by anecdote' think Abe Simpson.

But I'll happily concede the issue if we can drop the 'evidence by anecdote'.

I still haven't seen much in the way of evidence by anecdote, but I'm sure Charlie Wilkes will appreciate being compared to Abe Simpson.

Now stop or I'll start talking about Jesus.

Bring it on!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just a moment.
I am not going to explain the previous line in this post. It was not a quote, it was a paraphrase of the content of Amanda's testimony.
But this method is not correct. I will not answer you now, because your question comes after, and you owe me a response on many arguments since before.

Dear Machiavelli,

I'm glad that you finally come to the realization that the paraphrase you based some of your arguments may be wrong. You're basing much of your argument on your understanding of what Amanda testified, and your paraphrase indicates that understanding may be both incomplete and wrong. After you correct that and reconstruct some of your arguments I hope you'll find my insistence on getting this one straight justifiable.



On the other hand you complain that I don't pay enough attention to some of your posts.

It is indeed true that I tend not to reply to every post that only assert something. It is a popular tactic of some colpevolisti here, instead of countering some conclusions supported by arguments they simply repeatedly assert something opposite, disregarding the arguments that were already made. This way it is easy to reopen countless issues in one post. I think the only honest way of discussion of existing issues is by bringing some new argumentation or sources. E.g. by writing:

Amanda incriminates herself again in her hand written note, in her e-mail, in her 18. december interrogation, in her pre-hearing statement, in her diary and in her court testimony, and she is incriminated by Sollecito's statements.

you didn't bring anything new, only reasserted without arguments what you believe and what was already disputed countless times.

I also tend not to address issuess that seem marginal to me. You wrote:

You skipped some further points but then you quoted Comodi:

“C: Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened.”

And here I rejectd your assertion: it is not true. That was a question. Because it is an audio file and I listened to it. It is available for everyone to hear.

I haven't read any word from you on the topic since then.
So I'd like to know: did you change your mind on the point?

The problem of it being a question or not is as marginal as my opinion about it. Important is what Comodi implies in that sentence.

I also usually not address issues where I don't see anything to add. By saying:

a prosecutor is supposed to be interested in the truth, not to be stating the truth in a questioning. A prosecutor puts questions, doesn't provide information. I don't care at all if Comodi purposely gave an incorrect indication or if she was simply mistaking or not interested in getting the precise time, or if she simply used a colloquial way of speaking (do you know, for example, in many Italian areas midday is a solar concept: here in Emilia Romagna "la mezza" - midday - commonly means 12:30).

you didn't counter what I think about Comodi's game but you rather agreed with me so I didn't find anything to add.

Regarding your other arguments about Comodi, like the lack of defense objection, or the imprecision of the term "midday" they were already brought up and countered earlier this week.


Your proposition is to address points chronologically and I think its sensible. That would make it your turn now. Your turn to fix the paraphrase you got wrong and recreate or drop your argument based on Amanda's testimony.

Thanks

PS. I also tend to miss some things some people wrote so don't hesitate to bring to my attention anything you want me to answer specifically.

 

[Mary_H]

Have we ever gone five hours without any comments before?

ETA: 6 hours.

 

[RoseMontague]

Have we ever gone five hours without any comments before?

ETA: 6 hours.

Waiting on the carpetbaggers to arrive, there seem to be some scalawags already. While we are waiting does anyone know about this noon call that Amanda is assumed to have forgotten?

Just a general comment on the reactions of Comodi and Amanda to this line of questioning. Comodi seems satisfied that she accomplished something, perhaps even somewhat rather pleased and Amanda seems to have no clue even what the point of the questioning is. Maybe that is the argument in a nutshell, according to me.

 

[Mary_H]

Waiting on the carpetbaggers to arrive, there seem to be some scalawags already. While we are waiting does anyone know about this noon call that Amanda is assumed to have forgotten?

LOL, Rose! I got so desperate I had to join a new thread that talks about this thread.

Is the "Amanda Knox" thread an example of bad skepticism?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188989

 

[Mary_H]

Kevin Lowe is giving them a bit of a tweak over there:

If anyone still thinks that Amanda Knox's DNA wasn't found in Quintavalle's fourth footprint in the basketball court at 22:13 when the tea leaf evidence combined with the sound analysis clearly shows that Meredith's small intestine was turning cartwheels with Rudy in the Perugia lawyers' office at noon in the middle of the night then they're just an idiot.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6468790&postcount=21

 

[RoseMontague]

LOL, Rose! I got so desperate I had to join a new thread that talks about this thread.

Is the "Amanda Knox" thread an example of bad skepticism?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188989

I had no idea, guess I should look around more. I don't think either side is a good example of bad skepticism. For those that believe in guilt there is that whole mountain of evidence thingy and they feel justified in doubting any type of "rail-roading". For those that believe in innocence, the whole theory of the crime is not very plausible and that mountain of evidence is more like a big pile of bad science, trivialities, and unfortunate circumstance tied together by faulty reasoning.

The person that started that thread has posted on this one a few times and seemed to have an open mind about things. I wonder if the level of emotional involvement scared that person off from posting here more. Sometimes being caught in the middle is not fun.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin Lowe is giving them a bit of a tweak over there:

It's not aimed at anyone in particular, it's just a joke about the sheer mass and intricacy of evidence that's been discussed. There have to be dozens if not hundreds of more or less arcane points in dispute, almost all of which someone on one side or another is convinced should still be in doubt.

 

[Machiavelli]

Dear Machiavelli,

I'm glad that you finally come to the realization that the paraphrase you based some of your arguments may be wrong. You're basing much of your argument on your understanding of what Amanda testified, and your paraphrase indicates that understanding may be both incomplete and wrong. After you correct that and reconstruct some of your arguments I hope you'll find my insistence on getting this one straight justifiable.

But I don't think that my summarize of what Amanda wrote may be wrong. I believe in my understanding of what Amanda testified.
I think what a neutral interlocutor would do is, firstly, express acknowledgement that this is my understanding of Amanda's testimony. As a second step, confront his/her understanding with mine, and if he/she disagrees, express his/her disagreemnt and write an argument about it. As a third step, if they want to sort out grounds for disagreement, the both could decide to check for sources and quote their own sources that support their conclusions.
I think this is the procedure. I don't find your insistence justifiable, one of the reasons is for what I said above, I see your method as not interested in a honest debate. Your method seems an attempt to buld a questioning focused on the position of somebody else and not of yours, and merely on some chosen points of of somebody else's argument.
For the above said paraphrase, you might not subscribe with my understanding, but I encourage you to acknowledge that this is a proper rough summary of my understanding of Amanda's position on the 12:47 phone call; and to see how you may well propose some alternative understanding on the same expressing an argument for it - so to give something more of yours - before starting to ask quotations for me to back my convincements.

 

[RoseMontague]

For the above said paraphrase, you might not subscribe with my understanding, but I encourage you to acknowledge that this is a proper rough summary of my understanding of Amanda's position on the 12:47 phone call; and to see how you may well propose some alternative understanding on the same expressing an argument for it - so to give something more of yours - before starting to ask quotations for me to back my convincements.

That is a beautifully put together sentence, Michiavelli. I love the use of the word convincements. That is rarely used anymore and I confess I may have to borrow that one on occasion.

 

[LondonJohn]

So apparently the reason that Lumumba's bar remained closed for months was that he was still a suspect, and since he and Knox worked there and Meredith had visited there, it was a "potential crime scene" and therefore had to be sealed.

I have never heard a bigger load of rubbish in my life. If these are the criteria, why - for example - wasn't the University for Foreigners closed for months too? It takes a special type of bias to attempt to make this argument about why the police kept Lumumba's business shut until it went bust.

Maybe someone such as Fulcanelli can explain further on here why Lumumba's bar was a crime scene. Oh, hold on........

PS The police didn't "fly in" Roman Mero, the professor from Switzerland. Nor did they even actually locate him. He flew to Perugia on his own initiative, after a friend in Italy informed him of the situation. And once Mero's story was verified, it would have taken hours to get a judge to authorise his release. To suggest otherwise is purely bias.

 

[treehorn]

double post

 

[treehorn]

The main difference is really the individuals and the social dynamics. There are any number of cases where teenagers have formed a pack and killed one of their peers. The circumstances are all over the map, but the common denominator is that the kids in question have problems.

Here's a drawing that was found in Kelly Ellard's locker at school:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/kelly_ellard_cartoon.gif

Interesting find, CW

And what, pray tell, do you make of Knox's penchant for authoring and posting short stories about rape/ stalking/ violence against young women?

Or the infamous 'German machine gun pose', the self-described "inner Nazi", and the taunting of a Jewish coworker?

Drawings in a locker. Stories on a MySpace page. I see no significant difference: Both Ellard and Knox appear to have been troubled young women. A number of psychologists have been quoted in news articles espousing the view that Knox is suffering from antisocial PD/ sociopathy. As yet, I can see no reason to doubt them.

Have you read what Knox wrote - DURING HER TRIAL - under the name "Marie Pace" for submission to some sort of 'prison writing contest'?! (I could not believe my eyes! Her lawyers must have come very close to stroking out!)

There seems to be more than a passing 'preoccupation' with writing stories about sexual violence against young women (and not from the victim's POV), replete with a drug/ intoxication 'motif'. Against this 'backdrop' we also have a police-issued citation/ conviction in court for a rock-throwing incident/ "Residential Disturbance", and the abuse of street drugs and alcohol to the point of memory loss.

Knox was far from "problem free" prior to the Nov 1/07 murder.

Admit it.

I think it's very, very interesting that, in your claim about having met Knox at some point in time after the murder (I'll take you at your word), you almost seem to gush about how 'sweet' and 'charming' you found Knox to be.

It reminds me of a professor I had in undergrad, for a course in "Abnormal Psychology": he told us that, based on his 20 some odd years of practice, he knew he likely had a sociopath for a patient when he found himself taking an immediate liking to him/her.

Apparently, sociopaths can be quite (superficially) "charming" when meeting someone for the first time because they literally do not care what anyone thinks about them - a trait which makes them very relaxed when 'breaking the ice'.

According to my old prof, it's the sociopath's relaxed/ 'at ease' demeanor that puts us at ease when meeting them and, as a result, we often have positive feelings about the sociopath we've just met. Simply put, there is no 'ice' to break with a sociopath.

The rest of us ('non-sociopaths'), however, are apt to be at least a little nervous (if not frozen in a block of ice) when meeting someone for the first time: we worry about making a good impression, saying the right things, looking our best, etc.. We CARE, deeply, what others think about us. As a result, we come across as a little tense/ uneasy/ stiff and, in turn, that will make others feel uneasy/ a little less-than-positive about us, initially. It takes time to melt the ice.

PS On the subject of antisocial PD and Knox, I couldn't help but take note of the fact that Knox said she 'never felt embarrassed' and apparently thought nothing of spontaneously bursting into song in a restaurant without regard for the feelings/ sensibilities of others.

Knox's friends and family see the same behavior the psychologists are noting, but they write it off to "eccentricity"/ "immaturity"/ "child-like innocence"/ "Amanda just being Amanda."

I'm leaning more toward the psychologists.

 

[Matthew Best]

Have you read what Knox wrote - DURING HER TRIAL - under the name "Marie Pace" for submission to some sort of 'prison writing contest'?!

No, I haven't - can you show it to me?

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting find, CW

And what, pray tell, do you make of Knox's penchant for authoring and posting short stories about rape/ stalking/ violence against young women?

Cite?

Or the infamous 'German machine gun pose', the self-described "inner Nazi", and the taunting of a Jewish coworker?

Cite?

Drawings in a locker. Stories on a MySpace page. I see no significant difference: Both Ellard and Knox appear to have been troubled young women. A number of psychologists have been quoted in news articles espousing the view that Knox is suffering from antisocial PD/ sociopathy. As yet, I can see no reason to doubt them.

Cite?

Have you read what Knox wrote - DURING HER TRIAL - under the name "Marie Pace" for submission to some sort of 'prison writing contest'?! (I could not believe my eyes! Her lawyers must have come very close to stroking out!)

Cite?

There seems to be more than a passing 'preoccupation' with writing stories about sexual violence against young women (and not from the victim's POV), replete with a drug/ intoxication 'motif'. Against this 'backdrop' we also have a police-issued citation/ conviction in court for a rock-throwing incident/ "Residential Disturbance", and the abuse of street drugs and alcohol to the point of memory loss.

Knox was far from "problem free" prior to the Nov 1/07 murder.

Cite?

Admit it.

I think it's very, very interesting that, in your claim about having met Knox at some point in time after the murder (I'll take you at your word), you almost seem to gush about how 'sweet' and 'charming' you found Knox to be.

It reminds me of a professor I had in undergrad, for a course in "Abnormal Psychology": he told us that, based on his 20 some odd years of practice, he knew he likely had a sociopath for a patient when he found himself taking an immediate liking to the patient in question.

Apparently, sociopaths can be quite (superficially) "charming" when meeting someone for the first time because they literally do not care what anyone thinks about them - a trait which makes them very relaxed when 'breaking the ice'.

According to my old prof, it's the sociopath's relaxed/ 'at ease' demeanor that puts us at ease when meeting them and, as a result, we often have positive feelings about the sociopath we've just met. Simply put, there is no 'ice' to break with a sociopath.

The rest of us ('non-sociopaths'), however, are apt to be at least a little nervous (if not frozen in a block of ice) when meeting someone for the first time: we worry about making a good impression, saying the right things, looking our best, etc.. We CARE, deeply, what others think about us. As a result, we come across as a little tense/ uneasy/ stiff and that tends to make others feel a little less-than-positive about us initially. It takes time to melt the ice.

I have met a large number of charming and relaxed people in my life, many to whom I took an immediate liking. As far as I know, they are all still on the loose.

PS On the subject of antisocial PD and Knox, I couldn't help but take note of the fact Knox said she 'never felt embarrassed' and thought nothing of spontaneously bursting into song in a restaurant without regard for the feelings/ sensibilities of others.

Cite?

Knox's friends and family see the same behavior the psychologists are noting, but they write it off to "eccentricity"/ "immaturity"/ "child-like innocence"/ "Amanda just being Amanda."

I'm leaning more toward the psychologists.

And while you're at it, cite the police report you talked about last night.

 

[Fine]

I disagree. To use a trite analogy, one does not have to be Einstein to be able to understand that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. It's very easy to comprehend and assimilate most medical papers. Some terminology may require further research to understand, but the concepts and conclusions are usually readily accessible.

That's not to diminish the special skill, training and experience of those who actually conduct the research or those who work in these fields in general. But to suggest that only such people have any chance of understanding or interpreting research in their field is, to me, a massively incorrect assertion.

_____________________

John,

I don't know whether--- in your trite example--- you are confirming your point, or confirming the position of your opponents. In saying that anyone can understand that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, ....err,... I wonder whether you understand the equation yourself.

The mathematical equation E=mc² does not---repeat does not---say that energy is equal to anything, John. Yes, I know how it is usually "translated" into English. You've provided that translation. It's wrong. "E" doesn't refer to energy, it refers to the quantity ---or magnitude-- of energy in a system. Likewise "m" refers not to mass, but the quantity of mass in the same system. (In the case of "c"---thank God---no one ever translates this as "light" ---but as a magnitude, the speed of light--- so we don't have the same confusion.)

And it's because of this sort of confusion that our famous equation, E=mc², is sometimes called the mass-energy equivalence equation, though it doesn't, in fact, say a damn thing about the identity of mass and energy. For instance: "Einstein's equation does not entail that mass and energy are the same property any more than the equation m = ρV (where m is mass, V is volume, and ρ is density) entails that mass and volume are the same." See HERE for an intelligent discussion of Einstein's famous equation. Not so easy to understand after all.

///

 

[Kestrel]

I'm leaning more toward the psychologists.

It sounds more like you have been reading the tabloid quacks.

Look up the actual criteria for Antisocial personality disorder^WP in DSM-IV^WP, the definition used by real psychologists. You will find that Knox doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[treehorn]

But we still haven't cleared up the important questions, namely (1) Is Kevin_Lowe an MD, and (2) what exactly did Lalli use for ligatures? Because if it turns out that Kevin_Lowe is not an MD and that the standard material used for post-mortem bowel ligatures is chewing gum or puff pastry (and I emphasise that nobody has yet presented a peer-reviewed paper saying otherwise!) then Massei's theory that imperfectly tied ligatures made all the food slide down the length of Meredith's bowel accidentally must be right.

Until those questions are answered we obviously can't begin to make an intelligent assessment of what is stated by the totality of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the relevant experts.

Good to see you're back. A few thoughts:

1) Authoritative texts are also an important part of the 'scientific literature' - arguably much more important than a one-off, yet-to-be replicated study of limited applicability conducted in a 3rd world country and published in a lower-tier journal - and I've yet to find a single forensic pathology text (oft-cited or otherwise) that supports 'time lag'/ stomach contents as a reliable means of determining TOD; &

2) I revealed that I do not hold a MD about 2 weeks ago, and no one has used that tid bit to hunt me down via the interwebs and, and...well, do whatever it is they'd do armed with the knowledge that: a) I don't have a MD; and b) I'm interested in the discussion surrounding the Sollecito/ Knox case.

(I'm starting to think you're trying to lend weight to your argument by allowing that scintilla of doubt about your academic/ professional credentials to linger. You're the one insisting on "evidence-based" argument, and your claims about the 'elasticity' of the human intestine were not backed by citations to peer-reviewed journals or authoritative texts, so...tell us how you managed to lay your hands on a human intestine.)