Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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

I thought the post you're referring to was excellent, thoughtful and concise.

That brings to mind one of the odder things I've seen referred to in this debate that I came across when googling recently. I don't see much discussion on it now so I guess it didn't amount to anything, but what was your take on the mob guy who said his brother did it and hid the keys etc?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-supergrass-help-clear-Foxy-Knoxys-name.html

 

[Fine]

Did Amanda ask him to lie?

No, we don't agree. Raffaele apparently told the cops on the night of the 5th that Amanda went out and asked him to lie about it. But, on the 7th, he told Matteini that his pre-interrogation account was correct - he and Amanda stayed in. How could he reconcile an account in which they stayed in together - or even an account in which he can't remember if she went out - with the claim that she asked him to lie for her and say that she did not go out?

______________________

Charlie,

We don't seem to be on quite the same page. Let me clarify my position.

I agree that Raffaele told Judge Claudia Matteini---during his initial preliminary hearing on November 9---that Amanda and he had spent the night together. Fine. The focal issue for me is not whether Raffaele said something or other, true or false, to the cops but whether Raffaele is asserting in his Diary that Amanda induced him to lie to the cops.
I was responding to your earlier claim that Raffaele never actually said in his Diary that Amanda persuaded him to lie. Instead, you claimed, Raffaele only wrote in his diary that he'd told the cops he lied, and told the cops he lied because Amanda had induced (indotto) him to do so. (See Charlie's second sentence, above) . Therefore, you implied, he never really asserts in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. That was just something he told the cops.

What Raffaele retracted from his earlier statement to the police is the falsehood that Amanda had left him to go to work at Le Chic. There is no indication in this Diary that during his police interrogation Raffaele even said that Amanda had persuaded him to lie. But if you wish to read that into his Diary, Fine, Raffaele never withdraws that charge against Amanda in his Diary. So---to me and Machiavelli, too---it's clear in his Diary that Raffaele is saying Amanda persuaded him lie---whether Raffaele had earlier said so or not.

And I don't see a problem for Raffaele reconciling his statements before the Court of Claudia Matteini. Apparently he said before the Court what he wrote in Diary, the "revised" version: We spent the night together, insofar as I can remember/ I lied to the cops about her leaving, because she asked me to. Two consistent statements. Still, we can understand why Raffaele's attorneys are asking in their APPEAL DOCUMENTS that the Matteini Court records be deleted from the court files for the upcoming Appeal Trial.

If asked today, I wonder whether Raffaele would still say she persuaded him to lie.

///

 

[Mary_H]

1)
3) There's nothing inherently wrong with your fondness for the musings of an obscure student of the common law from a 2nd tier school. However, my education precludes the possibility that I will share your interest at any point in the future - Unless, of course, the paper becomes published in a prestigious law review. (Do not hold your breath.)

Appeal to authority.

 

[Mary_H]

You don't seem to be the sort to literally think that the opinions of medical professionals in respect of knox (or any other accused) are of no value...

Appeal to flattery.

 

[Mary_H]

It is not my intention to "attack" Lowe.

Indeed, I am inclined to endorse his insistence on "evidence based argument" and I was intrigued by his theory re stomach contents/ the ligature issue.

You can imagine my surprise then when he suddenly dispensed with the evidence and advanced a series of unsupported suppositions about the displacement of alimentary matter.

Asking whether his suppositions can be elevated to a higher status on the basis of personal training/ experience is hardly an attack.

Appeal to authority.

 

[Mary_H]

Many of you seem better than that.

Appeal to flattery.

 

[quadraginta]

Appeal to authority.

I don't believe that means what you think it means.

 

[Danceme]

I think that's the difference between you and me: I see no reason to trust the decision of the court without knowing the evidence behind their decision.

I think I should have explained better as you have me all wrong. I meant, (coming from a guilty-leaning standpoint), if the evidence presented at appeal results in their release I will accept it. It will mean the defense has proved their innocence and I'm pretty sure if it convinces the judge it might even convince me. I am not wedded to the guilty verdict. I have always been 3/4s there with 1/4 doubt.

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".
<snip>
These are the kinds of things that I don't appreciate in debate.

I think Machiavelli is more the patient type who spends a lot of time explaining why he feels or thinks a certain way. I do not get the impression you do that he is saying "I'm right and you're wrong", and if you do get the impression he is saying this, certainly it can be no more often than many others on this thread appear to say it, especially the most vocal innocentisti.

 

[platonov]

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.

Isn't it more likely that English is not his first language - although I have to say I have no trouble following his posts. His style is apparently more lucid than mine.
I would commend his patient explanations of the Italian legal system to all interested parties.

Given this isn't he's a better candidate than I for the role of a member of SAP or one of 'Mignini's minions'.[Unless its a double bluff]
Mary D has some ideas in his regard also.

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.

Presumably the special forces option wont be exercised till after the appeal process is exhausted.
Perhaps civilian volunteers [Steve Moore in the Chuck Norris role ? ] in a deniable op scenario is the way to go - after all Italy is a member of NATO.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. James Grigson

QED?

A tad overstated, no? You haven't exactly offered a mathematical proof.

Alas, I have already stated (bravely, compared to Lowe) that I am NOT a medical doctor. Further, I do not take exception to your assertion that a proper diagnosis cannot be made without a face-to-face assessment of the subject, preferably over many, many sessions. However, "forensic" psychologists and psychiatrists routinely make fairly accurate assessments of subjects in the absence of this opportunity.

You don't seem to be the sort to literally think that the opinions of medical professionals in respect of knox (or any other accused) are of no value...

Consider the record of forensic psychological expert Dr. James Grigson. He asked Randall Dale Adams two questions and testified that Adams was dangerous and would kill again. He also said to Errol Morris that David Harris would not hurt anyone. Both predictions were empirically wrong.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't believe that means what you think it means.

Yeah, I know, that one was kind of a stretch, but I liked the symmetry of "appeal to authority, appeal to flattery, appeal to authority, appeal to flattery." It has rhythm.

It kind of works, though. He is saying he tended to believe Kevin until he found out that Kevin might not be qualified to offer his opinion, and that he would be willing to believe him again if Kevin obtained more training or credentials. It's ignoring the argument, so it must be some kind of fallacy, right?

 

[Justinian2]

Platonov,

You said:

I would commend his patient explanations of the Italian legal system to all interested parties​

Good point. Thanks.

 

[Mary_H]

______________________

Charlie,

We don't seem to be on quite the same page. Let me clarify my position.

I agree that Raffaele told Judge Claudia Matteini---during his initial preliminary hearing on November 9---that Amanda and he had spent the night together. Fine. The focal issue for me is not whether Raffaele said something or other, true or false, to the cops but whether Raffaele is asserting in his Diary that Amanda induced him to lie to the cops.
I was responding to your earlier claim that Raffaele never actually said in his Diary that Amanda persuaded him to lie. Instead, you claimed, Raffaele only wrote in his diary that he'd told the cops he lied, and told the cops he lied because Amanda had induced (indotto) him to do so. (See Charlie's second sentence, above) . Therefore, you implied, he never really asserts in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. That was just something he told the cops.

What Raffaele retracted from his earlier statement to the police is the falsehood that Amanda had left him to go to work at Le Chic. There is no indication in this Diary that during his police interrogation Raffaele even said that Amanda had persuaded him to lie. But if you wish to read that into his Diary, Fine, Raffaele never withdraws that charge against Amanda in his Diary. So---to me and Machiavelli, too---it's clear in his Diary that Raffaele is saying Amanda persuaded him lie---whether Raffaele had earlier said so or not.

And I don't see a problem for Raffaele reconciling his statements before the Court of Claudia Matteini. Apparently he said before the Court what he wrote in Diary, the "revised" version: We spent the night together, insofar as I can remember/ I lied to the cops about her leaving, because she asked me to. Two consistent statements. Still, we can understand why Raffaele's attorneys are asking in their APPEAL DOCUMENTS that the Matteini Court records be deleted from the court files for the upcoming Appeal Trial.

If asked today, I wonder whether Raffaele would still say she persuaded him to lie.

///

I think katy_did's summary on this was most accurate.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6543182&postcount=14441

 

[Kaosium]

______________________

Charlie,

We don't seem to be on quite the same page. Let me clarify my position.

I agree that Raffaele told Judge Claudia Matteini---during his initial preliminary hearing on November 9---that Amanda and he had spent the night together. Fine. The focal issue for me is not whether Raffaele said something or other, true or false, to the cops but whether Raffaele is asserting in his Diary that Amanda induced him to lie to the cops.

That passage is tortured English in translation, but it says Raffaele thinks he was really stupid when he told the cops Amanda told him to lie for her:

"I must admit [dire] that I said a 90% really stupid thing [grossa cavolata] in my second statement. And that is:
1 that fact that Amanda persuaded me to say something is not true [è una cazzata] and I have said so repeatedly to the judge and to the Squadra Mobile;"

I was responding to your earlier claim that Raffaele never actually said in his Diary that Amanda persuaded him to lie. Instead, you claimed, Raffaele only wrote in his diary that he'd told the cops he lied, and told the cops he lied because Amanda had induced (indotto) him to do so. (See Charlie's second sentence, above) . Therefore, you implied, he never really asserts in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. That was just something he told the cops.

Exactly. And why would he do that? If he was given the impression by the police that Amanda 'lied' about him, which you can also find evidence of in the diary, then telling the cops Amanda asked him to lie for her and she left explains why he didn't tell the truth the first time and double-damns her. I think Raffaele must have been awfully pissed off and heartbroken when the cops told him Amanda was 'lying' about him.

What Raffaele retracted from his earlier statement to the police is the falsehood that Amanda had left him to go to work at Le Chic. There is no indication in this Diary that during his police interrogation Raffaele even said that Amanda had persuaded him to lie.

He says it in the passage I quoted above. When he retracts the statement that Amanda left, it seems natural to me that he also retracts saying she asked him to cover for her, after all if she never left why would she have asked him to lie about it?

But if you wish to read that into his Diary, Fine, Raffaele never withdraws that charge against Amanda in his Diary. So---to me and Machiavelli, too---it's clear in his Diary that Raffaele is saying Amanda persuaded him lie---whether Raffaele had earlier said so or not.

I came to an entirely different conclusion.

If asked today, I wonder whether Raffaele would still say she persuaded him to lie.

///

Of course not, why would she have?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please do tell

1) What book? The physiology text?

2) Waterbury (of ?) versus Nadeau of Newseek: Isn't Waterbury the man who claims, without any eviudence to support his position, that Guede is an informant to the police of such value that knox and sollecito were charged and convicted at his behest?!

Do you expect me to take this man seriously? Do YOU?! If so, why?

3) There's nothing inherently wrong with your fondness for the musings of an obscure student of the common law from a 2nd tier school. However, my education precludes the possibility that I will share your interest at any point in the future - Unless, of course, the paper becomes published in a prestigious law review. (Do not hold your breath.)

Treehorn,

The book I mentioned with respect to Daniel was Amanda e gli Altri, the book that was published in 2008 on the case (and yes, you have also ignored my citation of the anatomy and physiology textbook). As for your arguments about the articles I mentioned, you are very generous with your criticisms but parsimonious with rebuttals of the arguments contained therein. I wish I could dismiss things I had not read as easily as you do. I have now provided you with several examples of Ms. Nadeau’s errors, and all you can do is to keep repeating that she works for Newsweek. Your argument cuts no ice.

Argument by repletion is also your strategy in the discussion of Mr. Sayagh’s article. Even if your estimation of Georgetown’s international law program were accurate, it is not a very convincing refutation of Mr. Sayagh’s points. I present a sample from ArrestedAbroad.ICJ.doc:

“Aside from the issue of whether Amanda’s case may not meet the threshold to justify her detention, there is also a question as to whether Italy’s precautionary detention laws are consistent with the European Convention, to which Italy is a party. The European Convention guarantees that the right to freedom can only be abridged under narrow circumstances. The means used to apply precautionary detention in Italy may violate that guarantee. I will determine whether that is the case in this section by looking at how the European Court determines the existence of a violation of Article 5.”

Do you think that Mr. Sayagh correctly analyzed Article 5? With your education, this should be a snap.

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah, I know, that one was kind of a stretch, but I liked the symmetry of "appeal to authority, appeal to flattery, appeal to authority, appeal to flattery." It has rhythm.

It kind of works, though. He is saying he tended to believe Kevin until he found out that Kevin might not be qualified to offer his opinion, and that he would be willing to believe him again if Kevin obtained more training or credentials. It's ignoring the argument, so it must be some kind of fallacy, right?

An appeal to authority is a fallacy if the authority is not qualified on the subject at hand. For example, if someone said that my football team had no chance to win the Super Bowl because Bill Clinton said so, 'appeal to authority' is a polite if stuffy way of saying: "WTF does Bill Clinton know about football? You expect that to end the debate?"

What Treehorn doesn't realize is that if a guy with a rational mind and access to medical journals can show how the time of death in the Massei report is basically scientifically impossible, no amount of badgering him about credentials is going to change that.

 

[Machiavelli]

The SAP (Sindacato Autonomo di Polizia (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?u=http://www.sap-nazionale.org/nav_chiSiamo.php)) which is a sort of police union not unlike the Fraternal Order of Police in the US.

The "medals" were given by the state. SAP is just a labor union, doesn't give medals. They are not medals however, they were just ... how would you call them in English? Formal awards?
The SAP of Perugia as far as I know made the requests, so we could say "lobbied" the police central office at the ministry in Rome to have these awards given.

 

[platonov]

<snip>

Originally Posted by Fine

If asked today, I wonder whether Raffaele would still say she persuaded him to lie.

///

Of course not, why would she have?

That doesn't necessarily follow nor indeed answer the Q.
[or deal with the larger issue].

Your argument is not very rigorous.

Whether she did or not he might say she did. - he did before by your logic.
But we wont know as he is not talking and the 'separate' defence strategy is still in place.
In any case he changed his story 3 years ago - with all that followed.

Talk of the 'prisoners dilemma' wont fly in court - as it doesn't here if you are claiming both parties are innocent.

A more interesting discussion might concern why they changed their stories on the 5th.
Was the scenario suggested in court by PL's attorney valid or was it advanced as it supported PL's case.

.

 

[platonov]

An appeal to authority is a fallacy if the authority is not qualified on the subject at hand. For example, if someone said that my football team had no chance to win the Super Bowl because Bill Clinton said so, 'appeal to authority' is a polite if stuffy way of saying: "WTF does Bill Clinton know about football? You expect that to end the debate?"

What Treehorn doesn't realize is that if a guy with a rational mind and access to medical journals can show how the time of death in the Massei report is basically scientifically impossible, no amount of badgering him about credentials is going to change that.

That's a very big IF to put it mildly.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof as skeptics sites often remind us.

No badgers or pathologists were harmed in the making of this post

.

 

[Kaosium]

That doesn't necessarily follow nor indeed answer the Q.
[or deal with the larger issue].

Your argument is not very rigorous.

It asks a pertinent question. One that seems to have been overlooked. If Amanda never left there's no reason--other than the 'crap' Raffaele feels stupid about--to think Amanda ever asked him to conceal that she did.

Talk of the 'prisoners dilemma' wont fly in court - as it doesn't here if you are claiming both parties are innocent.

A more interesting discussion might concern why they changed their stories on the 5th.

I am saying that you can get innocent people to say all sorts of silly things if you lie to them, convince them you have evidence against them, and threaten them. If they know you have someone in the other room being interrogated too, that just heightens the chances they might blurt forth something untrue to save themselves, especially if they think the other person is throwing them under the bus.

Was the scenario suggested in court by PL's attorney valid or was it advanced as it supported PL's case.

.

I am unaware of what you're referring to, What did PL's attorney suggest?