Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

You made the claim, you should back it up or retract it.

If this "confession" was the basis for the arrest, then why did the police RS at that time too? Why didn't they just release her after PL's alibi came to light?

These are the questions we have been asking all through this thread.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks Dan O.

I believe it was someone else here that even made a pretty strong case that the Daily Mail interview was not even with Raffaele at all (Possibly Mary_H?). The only other thing you have is the bit about the pricking of the finger because he pretty much took the advice of his lawyers to be silent after that. The many changing stories of Raffaele are exaggerated, in my opinion as well.

Searching this thread for Kate Mansey will lead you that topic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Can you direct us to a similarly exhaustive list of people convicted (or acquitted) after having made true confessions?

The one is of very little use without the other, unless your only point is to defend the premise that false confessions are indeed made from time to time.

That would seem to be a remarkably useless endeavor, since I don't believe anyone is seriously questioning that they do.

If you are trying to intimate that they are likely then you should offer some comparison of relative frequency. Are you suggesting that they are more likely than true ones? Should we add confessions to the list of "things which must be discounted in a court of law", along with DNA evidence, and any presumption of competence or honesty by anyone involved with any aspect of the trial which might reflect badly on the defendant's case?

This is a very silly and quite blatant misuse of statistics on your part.

Suppose I was looking out a window and I said to you (you not being able to see out the window) "Oh look, I see an albino pigeon".

If you were skeptical of this claim, the intelligent thing to do would be to get up and look out the window.

What would be very foolish would be to sit on your bottom, refusing to look out the window, and say "Your claim is completely useless unless you provide me with statistics as to the prevalence of albinism in pigeons. If it turns out albinism is very uncommon I plan to fix the belief that you have not seen an albino pigeon, because the odds of picking an albino pigeon by pure chance out of the pigeon population would then be very low".

This would be very foolish for two reasons. Firstly, you can tell an albino pigeon by the fact that it's white. Secondly, the reason this particular pigeon was noteworthy in the first place was because it was an albino pigeon.

What you are trying to pull here is exactly analogous: Amanda Knox's confession has the specific characteristics of an internalised false statement - it's an albino pigeon. We are examining it precisely because there is strong evidence in this case that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice - we are looking at it because it's an albino pigeon.

This is the wrong forum in which to try bluffing with fallacious statistical arguments. The Knox case was not randomly selected for examination from the complete pool of all court cases, and Knox's false statement has specific characteristics indicative of an internalised false confession.

 

[RoseMontague]

Searching this thread for Kate Mansey will lead you that topic.

Indeed it does.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6393637&postcount=8360

 

[RoseMontague]

This is a very silly and quite blatant misuse of statistics on your part.

Suppose I was looking out a window and I said to you (you not being able to see out the window) "Oh look, I see an albino pigeon".

If you were skeptical of this claim, the intelligent thing to do would be to get up and look out the window.

What would be very foolish would be to sit on your bottom, refusing to look out the window, and say "Your claim is completely useless unless you provide me with statistics as to the prevalence of albinism in pigeons. If it turns out albinism is very uncommon I plan to fix the belief that you have not seen an albino pigeon, because the odds of picking an albino pigeon by pure chance out of the pigeon population would then be very low".

This would be very foolish for two reasons. Firstly, you can tell an albino pigeon by the fact that it's white. Secondly, the reason this particular pigeon was noteworthy in the first place was because it was an albino pigeon.

What you are trying to pull here is exactly analogous: Amanda Knox's confession has the specific characteristics of an internalised false statement - it's an albino pigeon. We are examining it precisely because there is strong evidence in this case that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice - we are looking at it because it's an albino pigeon.

This is the wrong forum in which to try bluffing with fallacious statistical arguments. The Knox case was not randomly selected for examination from the complete pool of all court cases, and Knox's false statement has specific characteristics indicative of an internalised false confession.

That reminds me. Did you catch the reference to your Zebra story in that news article about the Amanda supporters?

ETA: Actually it is located in the Steve Moore story

http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/perugia/knox-never-harmed-living-thing-says-former-fbi-agent

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That reminds me. Did you catch the reference to your Zebra story in that news article about the Amanda supporters?

ETA: Actually it is located in the Steve Moore story

http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/perugia/knox-never-harmed-living-thing-says-former-fbi-agent

Actually the aphorism about looking for a horse not a zebra isn't one I made up myself, it's been around for a good long time. I think I most recently saw it on Scrubs, as a matter of fact, but it wasn't the first time I'd heard it. "A zebra hypothesis" is a term I can use amongst friends and colleagues without needing to explain myself.

 

[Mary_H]

This is a very silly and quite blatant misuse of statistics on your part.

Suppose I was looking out a window and I said to you (you not being able to see out the window) "Oh look, I see an albino pigeon".

If you were skeptical of this claim, the intelligent thing to do would be to get up and look out the window.

What would be very foolish would be to sit on your bottom, refusing to look out the window, and say "Your claim is completely useless unless you provide me with statistics as to the prevalence of albinism in pigeons. If it turns out albinism is very uncommon I plan to fix the belief that you have not seen an albino pigeon, because the odds of picking an albino pigeon by pure chance out of the pigeon population would then be very low".

This would be very foolish for two reasons. Firstly, you can tell an albino pigeon by the fact that it's white. Secondly, the reason this particular pigeon was noteworthy in the first place was because it was an albino pigeon.

What you are trying to pull here is exactly analogous: Amanda Knox's confession has the specific characteristics of an internalised false statement - it's an albino pigeon. We are examining it precisely because there is strong evidence in this case that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice - we are looking at it because it's an albino pigeon.

This is the wrong forum in which to try bluffing with fallacious statistical arguments. The Knox case was not randomly selected for examination from the complete pool of all court cases, and Knox's false statement has specific characteristics indicative of an internalised false confession.

Great post, Kevin.

 

[katy_did]

Actually the aphorism about looking for a horse not a zebra isn't one I made up myself, it's been around for a good long time. I think I most recently saw it on Scrubs, as a matter of fact, but it wasn't the first time I'd heard it. "A zebra hypothesis" is a term I can use amongst friends and colleagues without needing to explain myself.

Scrubs has the best quotes.

Dr. Cox: Newbie, do you happen to know what a zebra is?

J.D.: That patient just mocked me!

Dr. Cox: It’s a diagnosis of a ridiculously obscure disease when it’s much more likely that the patient has a common illness presenting with uncommon symptoms. In other words, if you hear hoof-beats, you just go ahead and think horsies — not zebras. Mm’kay, Mr. Silly Bear?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Thanks Dan O.

I believe it was someone else here that even made a pretty strong case that the Daily Mail interview was not even with Raffaele at all (Possibly Mary_H?). The only other thing you have is the bit about the pricking of the finger because he pretty much took the advice of his lawyers to be silent after that. The many changing stories of Raffaele are exaggerated, in my opinion as well.

After Rudy was arrested didn't Raffaele also write somewhere he was concerned about what stories the "Ivorian" might make up?

I am looking for a reference now as I don't have it in my notes, I only have that the comment was written somewhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's nonchanging story; false confessions

I guess it had something to do with the fact that his story kept changing.

Alt+F4,

Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi in front of Judge Matteini on November 8th, accoding to both Darkness Descending and Murder in Italy, as I have previously documented.

With respect to false confessions, there was an extensive discussion here some time ago. One of the themes that emerged was that the person doing the confession often minimizes his or her involvement. Finally, it is not unheard of for the police to ask the person being interrogated to imagine what happened, or for this person to mention that they had a dream. See The Dreams of Ada, and The Innocent Man. Several of us have quoted passages and/or given page numbers.

 

[LondonJohn]

After Rudy was arrested didn't Raffaele also write somewhere he was concerned about what stories the "Ivorian" might make up?

I am looking for a reference now as I don't have it in my notes, I only have that the comment was written somewhere.

He did say that. But, to me, that's an entirely natural thing for a non-culpable Sollecito to have said. After all, he knew that Guede had been on the run, and that presumably therefore Guede would have been monitoring the media. He would therefore have had every right to assume (correctly) that Guede had found out about the arrests of Knox and Sollecito before he himself was arrested.

Therefore, it seems perfectly rational that Sollecito would have worried that Guede might try to shift the blame (for the worst of the crime, if not even for the entire crime) to Knox and Sollecito - even if Guede knew they weren't involved - since he knew the police already suspected them of involvement (for reasons that Guede didn't even need to know). That would be an entirely logical gambit for Guede to attempt, and would therefore be an entirely logical concern for a non-culpable Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, can anyone enlighten me as to why the presence of disco buses at Piazza Grimana at around 11pm on Saturday 30th October 2010 (a regular Saturday night, the night before Halloween) should provide any insight whatsoever into the presence (or, more accurately, non-presence) of disco buses in Piazza Grimana on the evening of Thursday 1st November 2007 (a public holiday, the day after Halloween)?

Unfortunately, there were almost certainly no disco buses running in Perugia on 1st November 2007. And this is rather inconvenient for the stumbling and oft-changing testimony of the kindly homeless man Toto Curatolo, who stated that he'd seen disco buses on the same night that he'd seen Knox and Sollecito "lurking" by the low wall near the basketball court. But, don't forget: "he saw what he saw"

 

[tsig]

This is a very silly and quite blatant misuse of statistics on your part.

Suppose I was looking out a window and I said to you (you not being able to see out the window) "Oh look, I see an albino pigeon".

If you were skeptical of this claim, the intelligent thing to do would be to get up and look out the window.

What would be very foolish would be to sit on your bottom, refusing to look out the window, and say "Your claim is completely useless unless you provide me with statistics as to the prevalence of albinism in pigeons. If it turns out albinism is very uncommon I plan to fix the belief that you have not seen an albino pigeon, because the odds of picking an albino pigeon by pure chance out of the pigeon population would then be very low".

This would be very foolish for two reasons. Firstly, you can tell an albino pigeon by the fact that it's white. Secondly, the reason this particular pigeon was noteworthy in the first place was because it was an albino pigeon.

What you are trying to pull here is exactly analogous: Amanda Knox's confession has the specific characteristics of an internalised false statement - it's an albino pigeon. We are examining it precisely because there is strong evidence in this case that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice - we are looking at it because it's an albino pigeon.

This is the wrong forum in which to try bluffing with fallacious statistical arguments. The Knox case was not randomly selected for examination from the complete pool of all court cases, and Knox's false statement has specific characteristics indicative of an internalised false confession.

Kevin. previously you have said that internalised false statements were the expected result of hard interrogations now they're albino pigeons.

 

[LondonJohn]

Alt+F4,

Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi in front of Judge Matteini on November 8th, accoding to both Darkness Descending and Murder in Italy, as I have previously documented.

Unfortunately it now appears carved in stone - for a particular section of people who have an interest in this case - that Sollecito "changed his story" and positively told police that Knox had left his apartment on the night of the murder. The truth, of course, is radically different. The truth is that the police asked Sollecito (in his 5/6 Nov interrogation) how he could be CERTAIN that Knox had not left the apartment while he was sleeping that night. He replied to the effect that no, he couldn't be certain of course, and he would concede that it was possible that Knox had left while he slept, but he added that it was highly unlikely.

But of course this morphs easily (for people who have a desire to believe a certain view of events) into Sollecito destroying Knox's alibi, even though it's quite clearly no such thing - to an objective eye, that is.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kevin. previously you have said that internalised false statements were the expected result of hard interrogations now they're albino pigeons.

Nice contribution. Great argument. Well done.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hehe SA's latest "devastating" video on PMF has identified the wrong kebab restaurant, as visited by Guede on the night of the murder. If he'd only looked about 20 yards further up the road, he'd have seen the correct restaurant - "Il Cedro" - whose name I even helpfully gave him during his weekend's "experiment" here. Nothing like getting the details right.... maybe it was calling it "Kebap" for so long that was the source of the confusion....

 

[Alt+F4]

See my previous post and the half dozen posts I have previously listed the many comparisons to Amanda Knox and this study. Then read the study itself (70 pages), then if any of the cases mentioned interest you read the various documents regarding those cases. I am certain you will find many things in common.

How can there be a comparison to the Amanda Knox case and these other 39 cases when none of those cases involve someone being convicted of murder or rape based on a false confession of only being present at the scene of a murder but not participating in it?

 

[Alt+F4]

By the way, can anyone enlighten me as to why the presence of disco buses at Piazza Grimana at around 11pm on Saturday 30th October 2010 (a regular Saturday night, the night before Halloween) should provide any insight whatsoever into the presence (or, more accurately, non-presence) of disco buses in Piazza Grimana on the evening of Thursday 1st November 2007 (a public holiday, the day after Halloween)?

Sorry if I missed it John, could you give me the number to the post about a disco bus at Piazza Grimana two weeks ago. Thanks.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hehe SA's latest "devastating" video on PMF has identified the wrong kebab restaurant, as visited by Guede on the night of the murder. If he'd only looked about 20 years further up the road, he'd have seen the correct restaurant - "Il Cedro" - whose name I even helpfully gave him during his weekend's "experiment" here. Nothing like getting the details right.... maybe it was calling it "Kebap" for so long that was the source of the confusion....

"20 years further up the road"?. Yeah, nothing about getting the details right?

Anyway, what the heck are you talking about? Where is the post about the kebab shop?

 

[Matthew Best]

How can there be a comparison to the Amanda Knox case and these other 39 cases when none of those cases involve someone being convicted of murder or rape based on a false confession of only being present at the scene of a murder but not participating in it?

I guess if you put it like that there is no possible comparison.