Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

It seems something of a bizarre stretch given what i read of Spader's statements compared to Raffaele and Amanda's documents - unless you're trying to associate Amanda and Rafaelle with a self-confessed sociopathic killer, in which case it's logical if you wanted to blacken their names.

The comparison being made was one between the role that the defendants' own jailhouse writings in their respective trials played in their convictions, not the content itself of said writings.

The main point Fuji made is that it is not at all uncommon for suspects to have their words (written or spoken) documented by investigators and used to prosecute them. Spader, Sollecito, and Knox all spoke and wrote details about a crime they were supposed to be entirely unaware of. These statements were later used against them to secure convictions.

Yes, that was my general intent, although Spader's writings were far more directly incriminating than either Knox's or Sollecito's. The point is that all three of these individuals could have entirely avoided introducing evidence against themselves by not voluntarily producing anything in writing while incarcerated.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

At this stage I think recreating the moon landing would be easier for the guilter community out there than proving Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Pretending the opposite is hard to reconcile with even a tenuous connection to reality on their part.

You are addressing a label rather than an argument, so you can't win. If you think the court has railroaded two innocent people, you are a "conspiracy theorist," in the same bin as moon hoaxers and 9-11 truthers. Then, if you point out some of the countless other cases where innocent suspects really have been railroaded by the criminal justice system, it is "argument by anecdote."

Labels are useful because they make it easy for people to function without thinking. A clerk with an IQ of 85 can stock a whole soup aisle while he's listening to talk radio, get every can right, and know who to vote for in the next election - all without straining his limited intellect.

On the contrary it was an argument regarding the nature of the exchanges in this thread, using as an analogy, other threads on JREF.

Have a look at the rest of this forum, especially the CT section, to see the point I making.
Are you familiar with the rest of this forum. ?

As to the general debate about innocence or guilt there may well be a good case (I don't believe so) to be made for an unsafe conviction.
However it has not been made here.

All I see on this thread is a mishmash of wild claims, conspiracy theories, arguments revealing a basic misunderstanding of the points under discussion, unpersuasive 'expert analysis' from amateurs, credulous arguments giving the benefit of the doubt to (2 of) the suspects, talking points etc all repeated over & over.

The thread started with cartwheels & cultural differences** (they haven't gone away either !) and seems to have gone downhill since.

Your final point about labels** I can certainly agree with to a cerain extent - the Knox Mellas PR campaign seems to have used this to some effect.

However while the receptive 'shelf stackers' (seems a harsh description ?) may form a lucrative market for books, movies etc they don't get to decide the case.

That prerogative remains with the judicial authorities in Italy - hence my repeated references to the appeal.

In the meantime on this thread the skeptics can only point out the holes in the less that persuasive arguments as they reappear.

.

 

[Fuji]

What Spader wrote:

What Sollecito wrote:

Really, Stilicho? Really?

Since Stilicho actually said "It's [Spader's tone] not that similar to the tone employed by Sollecito or Knox," it is puzzling why you are presenting two excerpts so as to presumably illustrate a meaningful contrast.

I notice that you neglected to respond to the first half of Stilicho's post ("Spader writes with a tone similar to Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn among others.") I surmise that Stilicho was considering Spader's second letter to the Nashua Telegraph as the basis for a comparison, and not his "bedtime stories" for a fellow prisoner.

_______


What Spader said:

"I have read in numerous texts either online, newspaper, or the news, people's opinions and thoughts, and a majority of this state are uninformed idiots. Everyone seems to have their own take on this story, and no one has their facts straight."



What Kevin_Lowe said:

"The guilter community as a whole, as you have just demonstrated, doesn't really understand logical thinking. They can repeat some of the sound bites associated with it, and try to use them to set up "gotchas", but in doing so they just highlight the errors in their understanding."

_______

What Spader said:

"Now as Americans, I shouldn't have to repeat this, but it seems like I must, because everyone seems to have forgotten the Constitution. Everyone in this great country of ours is, and I quote, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Not the other way around."



What LondonJohn said:

"Defendants in criminal trials are not required to prove their innocence. If they can do so, then so much the better for them, but there's zero requirement for this to happen for a "not guilty" verdict to ensue."

 

[Fuji]

I just found this link on Steven Spader and the murder of Kimberly Cates. The connections between this case and the Knox/Sollecito case offered by others are specious nonsense at best. I do not intend to kill any more electrons discussing it.

As the author of this "specious nonsense", I would like to point out that my reference to Steven Spader's trial in a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case is no more specious than your incessant parade of wrongful prosecutions. In fact, if you were to examine the details of Kimberly Cates' murder and the subsequent investigation and prosecution, you would notice some striking parallels.


On Monday, prominent criminologist James Fox blogged about the case:

"The big surprise in the Spader case was in the complete lack of physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, even though this could be explained, as the prosecutor contends, by steps the accused may have taken to cover his trail."

"The rest of us may feel relieved that someone like Spader is kept off the street. At the same time, we should not be too thrilled about the means employed to achieve that end."

 

[Alt+F4]

I STILL can not fathom why Rudy Guede was not locked up in the slammer. Maybe it was already full of Mafia gangsta's?
Kidding aside, I wonder if he was ordered to appear in court for the charges?
Was he even given a ticket, such as, you know Amanda Knox recieved, for having a loud going-away party.
Do you or anyone else know?

The story I linked to said he was "booked", don't know if that has the same meaning in Italy as it does in the U.S. but we do know he was fingerprinted.

I have sometimes read that Rudy might have been a police informant, and that combined with what appears to be just a little slap on the wrist for the crime of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon makes a guy wonder what was goin' on...

Zero evidence that he was a police informant, someone seems to have just made this up. However, if he was a police informant why would they have bothered to fingerprint him at all?

 

[Machiavelli]

Please don't patronise me. What exactly IS the Mafia in modern Italy then? Does it have a political wing*? Or is is still nothing much more than a criminal fraternity which operates protection rackets and engages in illegal drugs trafficking and loan sharking?

* I'm aware that the Mafia "assists" politicians in elections by "supplying votes" in return for post-election "favours". But this is nothing more than illegal, undemocratic vote-rigging and kick-backs. It's totally different from a legitimate political wing which campaigns on its own platform.

What exactly is Mafia? A nice question to put to an Italian.
Mafia is a connection of individuals in a factual position of power and of buisnesses able to pursue interests and strategies by enforcing economical and political power, and with a capability to act outside the law, to implement force, to threat or physically retaliate.
Mafia is a political and economical system in which the elusion or violation of the laws of the state is a part of the mechanism, in which a factual dictatorship has a capability to exist and to influence and operate within a democratic society, and in which economical powers have a capablity to operate outside the law and where pat of the local economy depends on the violation of laws and on a system of personal powers.
Mafia is a power, a system as much as a structure of society, a way of organizing power within society as well as a power capable to exercise a control on a territory.
Mafia has the shape and features of a factual state exercising its power and existing illicitly, together with the legal state, in a necessary ambiguous relation of conflict and control with the organs of a legal state. Mafia provides people with political and economical benefits and deals politically with a population, managing its consensus. Mafia doesn't exist alone as a separate body unrelated to the political structure, without political protections, and political systems are always influenced by the existence of a mafia structure.
Mafia is a culture and a practice, a human environment in which an organization of power takes palce. The Camorra - the Mafia of the Naples region - has an estimated "fire power", a number of members directly employed in the exercise of power and activities, of about 45'000 - 55'000 people in a local area. Do you think a power able just to move 50'000 people directly in its orders is no political force?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's a false premise to begin with. Nobody who actually knows Amanda would describe her as cocky or narcissistic. She is friendly and unpretentious, and she takes a sincere interest in people.

How can you say that, do you know her personally? Do you know everyone who knows her personally? A lot of people had very nice things to say about Jeffrey Dahmer as well you know. Say so, doesn't make it so, ya know....

 

[Jungle Jim]

Well, Rudy miscalculated that probability for sure.
But I wouldn't blame him. He knew that the guys downstairs were out of town for the long weekend. As were most of students in Perugia. He checked that the flat above was empty and assumed the tenants are away, just like the guys below. Besides, taking risks is a burglar's job. And Rudy wasn't a brightest burglar.

So you think that Rudy's reason for going to the cottage was to burglarize it?

 

[Mary_H]

Have a look at the rest of this forum, especially the CT section, to see the point I making.
.

I'm gonna get right on that. I'll let you know when I'm done. Just hold off on any new posts until I get back to you, so we can pick up where we're leaving off.

 

[Malkmus]

I notice that you neglected to respond to the first half of Stilicho's post ("Spader writes with a tone similar to Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn among others.") I surmise that Stilicho was considering Spader's second letter to the Nashua Telegraph as the basis for a comparison, and not his "bedtime stories" for a fellow prisoner.Michael Moschen

Probably because that would be attacking the arguer, not the argument? I'm not going to entertain the idea that comparing a killer's writings to that of posters on here because it's completely irrelevant.

 

[Justinian2]

On the contrary it was an argument regarding the nature of the exchanges in this thread, using as an analogy, other threads on JREF.

Have a look at the rest of this forum, especially the CT section, to see the point I making.
Are you familiar with the rest of this forum. ?

As to the general debate about innocence or guilt there may well be a good case (I don't believe so) to be made for an unsafe conviction.
However it has not been made here.

All I see on this thread is a mishmash of wild claims, conspiracy theories, arguments revealing a basic misunderstanding of the points under discussion, unpersuasive 'expert analysis' from amateurs, credulous arguments giving the benefit of the doubt to (2 of) the suspects, talking points etc all repeated over & over.

The thread started with cartwheels & cultural differences** (they haven't gone away either !) and seems to have gone downhill since.

Your final point about labels** I can certainly agree with to a cerain extent - the Knox Mellas PR campaign seems to have used this to some effect.

However while the receptive 'shelf stackers' (seems a harsh description ?) may form a lucrative market for books, movies etc they don't get to decide the case.

That prerogative remains with the judicial authorities in Italy - hence my repeated references to the appeal.

In the meantime on this thread the skeptics can only point out the holes in the less that persuasive arguments as they reappear.

.

Your claim: The prerogative remains with the judicial authorities in Italy.

This claim is actually off topic. Furthermore, nobody disputes that claim.

Your claim: The skeptics can only point out the holes in the less that persuasive arguments as they reappear.

This is not an argument, but actually a claim the the counter claims have holes. As I pointed out earlier, quality argumentation does not refute one claim with another claim. Quality argumentation does not include ad homs or immediate counter claims.

The claims that we are countering were made by the courts. We are attacking the data, logic, analyses, truth, and validity of the claims made by the court. The starting point of these arguments is that the court findings were incorrect. That's where it starts.

You are free to debate the facts, extrapolations, logic and methods that we use in our arguments.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, you had a visitation with her at the prison?

Yes, I visited her twice, with Chris Mellas, when I was over there.

 

[Mary_H]

Ok, sorry about that. Isn't the contention now that there was human activity on the computer the entire night?

Well, I think the idea is there are short enough intervals between periods of human activity to increase the probability that someone was tending to it over the course of the whole night.

 

[brodski]

From the top line of the Chart of Human Evaluation:

Emotion: Eagerness, exhilaration
Sexual interest: Intense interest in childrenActual worth: Creative and constructive
Ethic Level Bases ethics on reason. Very high ethic level.
Handling of truth: High concept of truth
Courage level: High courage level
Speech: Strong, able, swift and full exchange of belief and ideas.
Method Used by subject to handle others: Gains support by creative enthusiasm and vitality backed by reason
Ability to experience present time pleasure: Finds existence very full of pleasure.How much others like you: Loved by many
From the criminal line (1.1) of the Chart of Human Evaluation:

How much others like you: Generally despisedI could continue, but you know who I'm referring to.

Ya, I know. This is the take on the world by LRH, the founder of Scientology. I don't belong to the Church, but I still respect the works of LRH.

You think that dianetics indicates the innocence of Knox?
That's better than cartwheels. And not in a good way. Hubbard was a crank who's works may even subtract from the sum total of human knowledge and founder of a dangerous and downright evil cult. I really don't think you'll want to be referring to his works on this site if you expect a positive response.

 

[Malkmus]

As the author of this "specious nonsense", I would like to point out that my reference to Steven Spader's trial in a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case is no more specious than your incessant parade of wrongful prosecutions. In fact, if you were to examine the details of Kimberly Cates' murder and the subsequent investigation and prosecution, you would notice some striking parallels.
[/i]

Fuji, when I wrote on here asking for an explanation from you or Stilicho, it was in response to this statement:

Have you shown this stuff to LooneyJohn and Chris Halkides? I am sure they'd write it off as yet another hum-drum "internalised false confession". Are they fighting to get Spader freed yet?

Not your four points, which I did get, so you can retract your conclusion that I'm either an imbecile or a liar for not comprehending it. But now that you've come here with your above explanation I can see that Stilicho was just being sarcastic.

 

[Chris C]

Oh, so now Rudy knew the house was empty when he "broke in"? How did he know that?

His own words, he arrived there at 2030 hours. Dunno how he knew it was empty. Maybe he watched the house and didn't notice activity. Maybe he tossed a rock through the window to see if anyone was home. Of course the rock through the window is just pure speculation. After all the break in was faked.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, I think the idea is there are short enough intervals between periods of human activity to increase the probability that someone was tending to it over the course of the whole night.

Ok, then what about both RS and AK's statements that they were asleep? Also I seem to recall reading somewhere RS's defense stating that he was being manipulated by the police because he couldn't say for certain that AK was with him the entire night because he was asleep.

 

[Malkmus]

In fact, if you were to examine the details of Kimberly Cates' murder and the subsequent investigation and prosecution, you would notice some striking parallels.


On Monday, prominent criminologist James Fox blogged about the case:

"The big surprise in the Spader case was in the complete lack of physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene, even though this could be explained, as the prosecutor contends, by steps the accused may have taken to cover his trail."

"The rest of us may feel relieved that someone like Spader is kept off the street. At the same time, we should not be too thrilled about the means employed to achieve that end."

Fuji, it's a stretch, and everyone can see that. You're making the false analogy that because there isn't much physical evidence against Spader that we should treat that case the same way as we do Knox/Sollecito. The defendants in the Mont Vernon case bragged to several people about the killings and showed them the murder weapon, then continued to brag about the killing in prison writings. Had Knox/Sollecito done anything similar, no one here would be defending them. It's their obvious lack of knowledge surrounding the details of that night that's the big difference here.
I can acknowledge your sentiment that in both cases the two parties wrote things they shouldn't have, but the writings are so extremely different that it's bizarre that you would even bother mentioning them.

 

[Malkmus]

They could have come home early.

That's a risk any burglar has to take when breaking into a house.

 

[Malkmus]

I can't think of how he would know that Laura was in Rome. As for the guys downstairs, they were also away, and he might have known that. They could have, however, come home early, right?

The odds of the nursery school being empty were much higher.

I guess it has to be spelled out for you that when Rudy threw the rock through the window and no one came looking he knew no one was home.