Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

That is an excellent way of approaching a discussion. I think it is easier for you being in an undecided position to maintain such an approach but I would like to say that I appreciate the contributions from all posters as well, even the ones I don't always or even rarely if ever agree with, or those that I don't really understand.

So do I. But I don't like the form of debate that Machiavelli fairly often adopts, which is along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong". Here's just one recent example:

"But there is a perfect coincidence between the outline of the mark and the shape of the bathmat decoration. This coincidence is too strong to ba casual. A dinamic scenario of Guede's foot producing this coincidence by chance would be intrinsically unlikely.

But the foot also displays an array of incompatibilities with Rudy Guede's foot, which are visibly absent in the comparison with Sollecito's foot, and those cannot be skimmed over as if evidence against Rudy or in his favour were less important and you can just attribute him anything without any backing at all. The attribution to Rudy is not completely "free" in the reasoning, it must be bolstered with some element. If the footprint looks different from Rudy's that's a problem in itself, this finding cannot be replaced with a personal feeling neither."

Machiavelli is essentially saying that he is definitely correct in his opinion that the print matches Sollecito and that it doesn't match Guede. He is not offering this as opinion, but as "fact". He's also rather condescendingly suggesting at the end that people who disagree with his conclusions are relying on a "personal feeling" rather than any sort of objective analysis. These are the kinds of things that I don't appreciate in debate.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm waiting for someone from PMF or TJMK to come down on you like a ton of bricks for spelling the victim's name incorrectly.........

Are you reduced to calling out typos, LJ?

I appreciate you bringing it to my notice, but the obvious glee with which you pounce does not speak well of you.

 

[Kestrel]

Why is it so many find it so appealing to advance arguments along these lines:

Rare event, X, has occurred in the past cases. Therefore, X has occurred in THIS case.

Many of you seem better than that.

The rare part of the Timothy Masters conviction was the remote diagnosis. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that a remote diagnosis is accurate?

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, I would appreciate your assistance.
I strive for understanding of your position as I have stated before. What was the broadly made assertion that the Cates case disproved?

I believe I addressed that in the second paragraph of the post of mine you quoted. In the part you edited out.

Perhaps one of us should go back and re-read it.

 

[katy_did]

I believe a lot of the early rumors were due to this article including Daniel. Reading the quote it does appear to be nothing more than hearsay:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492893/Foxy-Knoxy-girl-compete-mother-men.html

What seem to be the original quotes are in this Corriere article. According to that, what Stefano Bonassi actually says is: "A couple of times three friends from Rome came to our house, one of whom is called Daniel De Luna. On the second occasion in which the latter came to the house, he had sex with Amanda [un rapporto sessuale]". It isn't a "sexual rapport" as in the Mail article, which makes it sound as if there was some mesmerizing ongoing sexual chemistry between them.

The article also quotes yet another leaked statement from Amanda, which I think must be the list she was asked to make on 5 November of the names of any men who had visited the house and might have met Meredith. On Daniel she writes: "Daniel, from Rome, whose phone number I don't know, came to the house twice; the second time he spoke with Meredith". IIRC, the night on which Amanda and Daniel are supposed to have slept together was the night they all went out together, and Meredith slept with Giacomo that same night. So that's probably the night she also spoke to Daniel, the second time he came to the house, and therefore - based on what Stefano said - the only time he and Amanda slept together (before she and Raffaele got together).

I'd put money on this list being Barbie Nadeau's source, especially since she also claims Amanda slept with "a Greek and an Albanian" (Juve and Spyros in that article). In other words, she's taken the list Amanda gave to the police of all the men she could think of who had visited the house and might have met Meredith, and assumed Amanda slept with all of them on each occasion.

ETA: I also think Amanda may have been talking about all the men who had visited the house in general, rather than just the girls' flat.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why is it so many find it so appealing to advance arguments along these lines:

Rare event, X, has occurred in the past cases. Therefore, X has occurred in THIS case.

Many of you seem better than that.

I believe you made a statement earlier that Amanda's sister and family had not denied the sex on a stranger story and I provided you with a link that they had in fact denied the story. Have you changed your opinion on this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why is it so many find it so appealing to advance arguments along these lines:

Rare event, X, has occurred in the past cases. Therefore, X has occurred in THIS case.

Many of you seem better than that.

"Many of you seem better than that"? Patronising, anyone?

I am pretty certain that no respectable psychiatrist would ever countenance making a diagnosis of a personality disorder in a subject whom they had never even met, let alone consulted with. This is fairly explicitly laid out in the DSM codes in the US, and is definitely regarded as the only proper practice in the UK. But if you prefer to believe that a decent remote diagnosis can be made, then that's your prerogative.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you reduced to calling out typos, LJ?

I appreciate you bringing it to my notice, but the obvious glee with which you pounce does not speak well of you.

I personally wouldn't mind one bit that you mistakenly spelled the name Kercher incorrectly. But some other people seem to find that an egregious fault - which was the point I was making.

And I'm pretty used to not being spoken well of....and I don't really care.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
I am pretty certain that no respectable psychiatrist would ever countenance making a diagnosis of a personality disorder in a subject whom they had never even met, let alone consulted with. This is fairly explicitly laid out in the DSM codes in the US, and is definitely regarded as the only proper practice in the UK. But if you prefer to believe that a decent remote diagnosis can be made, then that's your prerogative.

I am pretty certain too, given that it concerns a diagnosis and the whole scope of the life of an individual.
However, I think anyone may be able to see clues of the features of personality, as they are expressed in things like letters, speeches, behaviours.
I don't subscribe to the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis by the way, and I think there is no evidence to make this specific diagnosis. I think somehing of Amanda's personality pattern can be read though, bearing in mind that anyway it is "Amanda" as it was at a different age in some cases, and in past situations.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe I addressed that in the second paragraph of the post of mine you quoted. In the part you edited out.

Perhaps one of us should go back and re-read it.

You are correct. That was a broad assertion made by Steve Moore, not someone on this board. I also agree that nobody here even on the guilty side is saying that false confessions never happen. If they do and we use something like the 40 case study I posted, you would approve as it disproves the broad assertion made. Do you think there should be a distinction made if someones just says they have an opinion that Amanda's confession was coerced and here are similarities with this false confession that helps me form that opinion?

I am not aware that anyone here has stated that these examples are proof that Amanda's statement was coerced, but I do think similarities with other cases are helpful in explaining an opinion along those lines.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli knows more than all of us about law, Italian law, forensic podiatry, philosophy, jurisprudence and pretty much all the evidence in this case. I thought that was well-known and understood.

I know less than C. Halides about chemistry and bio-chemistry. By the way, LondonJohn, did you develop any thought in contrast with your idea of mafia, or your understanding of mafia?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So do I. But I don't like the form of debate that Machiavelli fairly often adopts, which is along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong"..

Your joking, right.....

 

[LondonJohn]

What seem to be the original quotes are in this Corriere article. According to that, what Stefano Bonassi actually says is: "A couple of times three friends from Rome came to our house, one of whom is called Daniel Di Luna. On the second occasion in which the latter came to the house, he had sex with Amanda [un rapporto sessuale]". It isn't a "sexual rapport" as in the Mail article, which makes it sound as if there was some mesmerizing ongoing sexual chemistry between them.

The article also quotes yet another leaked statement from Amanda, which I think must be the list she was asked to make on 5 November of the names of any men who had visited the house and might have met Meredith. On Daniel she writes: "Daniel, from Rome, whose phone number I don't know, came to the house twice; the second time he spoke with Meredith". IIRC, the night on which Amanda and Daniel are supposed to have slept together was the night they all went out together, and Meredith slept with Giacomo that same night. So that's probably the night she also spoke to Daniel, the second time he came to the house, and therefore - based on what Stefano said - the only time he and Amanda slept together (before she and Raffaele got together).

I'd put money on this list being Barbie Nadeau's source, especially since she also claims Amanda slept with "a Greek and an Albanian" (Juve and Spyros in that article). In other words, she's taken the list Amanda gave to the police of all the men she could think of who had visited the house and might have met Meredith, and assumed Amanda slept with all of them on each occasion.

ETA: I also think Amanda may have been talking about all the men who had visited the house in general, rather than just the girls' flat.

I'm reminded of Nadeau in the "Trials of Amanda Knox" programme, where she was interviewed on camera about the group sex aspect of the prosecution's case: she said that she'd "interviewed" some of the Perugia student community, and claimed that "these kids (Perugia students in general) are no strangers to what I would consider fairly extreme sex games." Riiiiight.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know less than C. Halides about chemistry and bio-chemistry. By the way, LondonJohn, did you develop any thought in contrast with your idea of mafia, or your understanding of mafia?

Did I develop any thought in contrast with my idea of mafia, or my understanding of mafia? Huh?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Machiavelli is essentially saying that he is definitely correct in his opinion that the print matches Sollecito and that it doesn't match Guede. He is not offering this as opinion, but as "fact". He's also rather condescendingly suggesting at the end that people who disagree with his conclusions are relying on a "personal feeling" rather than any sort of objective analysis. These are the kinds of things that I don't appreciate in debate.

An observer might as well perceive you as condescendent when you step in with lapidary affirmations meant to be definitive like nobody ever could attribute a print like this to anybody, labelling like psedo-science...
Charlie Wilkes is also very much on the line "I know more" and "I am right" with little explanation, but not condescending as for what I perceive. The fact is time is a tyrant, often we don't spend our time in attempts to be more pleasant.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did I develop any thought in contrast with my idea of mafia, or my understanding of mafia? Huh?

What do you think about mafia .... how do you imagine it ...

 

[katy_did]

I'm reminded of Nadeau in the "Trials of Amanda Knox" programme, where she was interviewed on camera about the group sex aspect of the prosecution's case: she said that she'd "interviewed" some of the Perugia student community, and claimed that "these kids (Perugia students in general) are no strangers to what I would consider fairly extreme sex games." Riiiiight.

I rarely if ever use roll-eye smilies, but the Daily Mail and Barbie Nadeau drove me to two in the same post.

 

[Mary_H]

How, on earth, do you have ANY idea what my qualifications are?

Have you interviewed Amanda? If not, you are not qualified to diagnose her mental health.

I don't have a clue WHO you are, much less what your qualifications are, yet you claim there's an 'information asymmetry' in this regard?! Do tell.

What's an information asymmetry? And what does it have to do with who we are?

PS When you attempt to "counter" (and I'm using the term in it's loosest possible sense here) my use of the phrase "illicit narcotic" with something along the lines of, "Correction: Marijuana", do you really expect me to take you seriously?!

Your phrase was not "illicit narcotic," it was "illicit narcotics." I also corrected the term "abused."

PPS I hope you won't take offense, but I'm done with repeatedly typing out easy to find information on antisocial PD, knox's Seattle court record, or Nadeau's book for your convenience and/or amusement.

You're done? I didn't realize you had started.

 

[Justinian2]

So do I. But I don't like the form of debate that Machiavelli fairly often adopts, which is along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong". Here's just one recent example:

Machiavelli seems as if he is using a thesaurus too often.

Maciavelli writes:

But there is a perfect coincidence between the outline of the mark and the shape of the bathmat decoration. This coincidence is too strong to ba casual. A dinamic scenario of Guede's foot producing this coincidence by chance would be intrinsically unlikely.​

I would have preferred something like the following:

There is a significant correspondence between the outline of the luminol enhanced footprint and the shape of the bathmat decoration. This correspondence is not merely casual.​

However it is written, I disagree and believe that the footprint is highly likely to be Guede's.
Anyway, I don't like the guilters and I don't respect their viewpoint. It seems like the feeling is mutual and they all have me on their ignore list. That is OK by me as I don't think logic, fact or reason will change their minds.

If we use them to get our message out and stimulate our own thinking, then it's a win-win situation. The likelihood that these guilters will change their minds is slim to none. I only hope for a different outcome with the jury. If not, I hope that Obama sends Clinton and/or diplomats or special forces.

 

[quadraginta]

You are correct. That was a broad assertion made by Steve Moore, not someone on this board. I also agree that nobody here even on the guilty side is saying that false confessions never happen. If they do and we use something like the 40 case study I posted, you would approve as it disproves the broad assertion made. Do you think there should be a distinction made if someones just says they have an opinion that Amanda's confession was coerced and here are similarities with this false confession that helps me form that opinion?

Yes.

I am not aware that anyone here has stated that these examples are proof that Amanda's statement was coerced, but I do think similarities with other cases are helpful in explaining an opinion along those lines.

Perhaps not necessarily as "proof", although I suspect that diligent review could probably uncover such an attempt. After all, we are approaching 30,000 opportunities to find one.p)

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the incessant stream of such examples in these threads has often been made as an unsubtle effort to create the appearance such miscarriages are common, and that thus it is more likely in the Knox case.

As I have already mentioned this is a standard rhetorical tactic in many arenas, and accounts for many public misapprehensions of reality. Anti-vaxxers are fond of it, for example, as are immigration alarmists. "Stranger Danger" to children is another classic example. Even Halloween trick-or-treating has suffered.

I could continue by more reiteration, and discussing even further the way that media outlets and politicians use this same tactic to magnify the apparent incidence of misfortune and misdeeds by their selection of the most egregious examples without reflecting on their comparative frequency, but not only would it be redundant, it would also be wasted. Anyone who is capable and honestly willing to understand the point I have been trying to make will have done so by now.