Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Ya know, without electronic data to back them up, those DNA findings should have been considered worthless appeals to authority as per the rules of argumentation.​

I don't agree with this. The real problem is that the two DNA results most useful to the prosecution both involve unusual circumstances relative to other DNA tests in this case. The e-gram for the knife blade scored markers that were lower than any scored for other samples. The bra fastener was handled in a way that is known to cause contamination and does not conform to published guidelines for handling DNA evidence. We therefore know, on the basis of information we already have, that neither of these test results should be considered reliable.

We arrived at the same conclusion in different ways. I was assuming that because the electronic data wasn't provided so that other scientists could review the work, that the findings of the prosecution should have been considered worthless appeals to authority as per the rules of argumentation.

Are you saying that sufficient information was provided to allow other authorities to review the work and that they have found the DNA samples unreliable?

If so, that's even more conclusive ...

 

[Machiavelli]

A long time ago I decided that we'd proved beyond all reasonable doubt the Massei narrative was total rubbish - the science was absolutely unequivocal that Meredith died long before 23:30 barring divine intervention or similar.

The appeals team's discovery of the 21:26 Naruto file,combined with the correct time of death, almost completely closed off any possibility that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but only almost completely. Just possibly they started the Naturo file at 21:26, bolted out the door, ran to Amanda's house, and then stabbed Meredith to death for no reason. That's such a ridiculous idea it could never sustain a rational prosecution but we couldn't prove with 100% certainty that it didn't happen. That was mildly unsatisfyng.

However based on what RoseMontague just posted, either the appeals team is lying through its teeth and is going to get disbarred, or the guilter case is dead, burned, buried and the ground salted. The time of death argument we spent so much time on turns out to be irrelevant: We can give the guilters a 23:30 time of death as a free kick and Amanda and Raffaele were still at home long after that time, and hence are totally innocent.

Game over. Time for the guilters to start looking for a new hobby.

Amanda and Raffaele will be convicted again, probably within the next month.
There is no doubt they are guilty.
Unfortunately for them, the "game over" is for the defence.
When Giulia Bongiorno has to cite a 12 hour time of empty screensaver log, we are at the end.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I was thinking that would just be a case of an incompetent 'authority' rather than an actual example of an appeal to authority fallacy. I've gotten the impression some assumed that any reference to an authority they didn't like constituted an 'appeal to authority,' as did credentialism.

However I suppose quoting an incompetent authority would constitute a fallacious appeal to authority, thus I cede your point.

The appeal to authority is a bit of a murky area frankly. Most canonical fallacies are totally useless arguments - appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, post hoc ergo propter hoc and so on get you nowhere at all.

The appeal to authority is actually a moderately compelling argument, if the authority is relevant, because authorities are authorities for a reason. In some cases an appeal to authority is the best argument we have. If Dr Livingstone is the only person to have met the Wobblewobble tribe, then quoting what Dr Livingstone says about them is the probably best argument we have.

It's just not a totally watertight argument, especially on issues where experts differ or where experts might have a conflict of interest.

A lot of people are a bit confused about the appeal to authority fallacy and I don't blame them really.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Amanda and Raffaele will be convicted again, probably within the next month.
There is no doubt they are guilty.
Unfortunately for them, the "game over" is for the defence.
When Giulia Bongiorno has to cite a 12 hour time of empty screensaver log, we are at the end.

I'm reminded of the scenes in the old Warner Brothers cartoons where Wile E. Coyote runs off the edge of a cliff, and discovers that he can hover suspended in the air as long as he doesn't look down.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more than 520 computer file dates modified

What does this mean?

"severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What does this mean?

"severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)"

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the files for Stardust weren't the only files the Postal Police messed about with before they imaged the hard drives or gave copies of them to the defence.

 

[quadraginta]

The appeal to authority is a bit of a murky area frankly. Most canonical fallacies are totally useless arguments - appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, post hoc ergo propter hoc and so on get you nowhere at all.

The appeal to authority is actually a moderately compelling argument, if the authority is relevant, because authorities are authorities for a reason. In some cases an appeal to authority is the best argument we have. If Dr Livingstone is the only person to have met the Wobblewobble tribe, then quoting what Dr Livingstone says about them is the probably best argument we have.

It's just not a totally watertight argument, especially on issues where experts differ or where experts might have a conflict of interest.

A lot of people are a bit confused about the appeal to authority fallacy and I don't blame them really.

Mary_H addressed the significant bit in her post when she included this part of the wiki article in her quote.

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

This seems relatively straightforward and unambiguous to me. I'm not certain what the confusing part is.

 

[quadraginta]

What does this mean?

"severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)"

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the files for Stardust weren't the only files the Postal Police messed about with before they imaged the hard drives or gave copies of them to the defence.

I'm going to guess that the modification of a file's date occurs under rather more circumstances than most people realize, and that there are a great deal more files that are routinely accessed in the course of the computer 'doing its thing' than most people are aware of.

When you say "the only files the Postal Police messed about with", the way that reads to me is the suggestion that the Postal Police consciously and singly "messed" with individual files. I suspect the reality is more mundane.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm reminded of the scenes in the old Warner Brothers cartoons where Wile E. Coyote runs off the edge of a cliff, and discovers that he can hover suspended in the air as long as he doesn't look down.

I don't know why you always think so much about the guilters and less about the defendants. Would you be reminded of the same scene even if they are convicted again?

 

[Machiavelli]

Kevin may have overstated this information and you may have understated it. I prefer the understated part at this point, simply because I have not seen a counter argument to this. I do think that at the very least, the court will grant the defense request for additional testing and expert review on the computers.

The missing pages are an issue, I agree. This is simply what was provided in the article and seems to represent what they consider to be important. Broken_English does point out that this particular news source had a decidedly guilty stance during the early stages and even during the trial and now seems to have gone in the opposite direction. I am looking for the complete document as well as Amanda's new filing.

Actually, what you read in the TGCOM pages is the same argument tha can also be found in the appeal. The only additional info is the log connected to screensaver activity (which is not exactly the screensaver log however). This information is the only new thing. But would have been better for the defence if it wasn't there, in my opinion. It is quite dangerous. Using it is a really desperate move.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ms. Nadeau

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,

We were discussing Ms. Nadeau's many errors, were were not? Dr. Waterbury has written some excellent articles on LCN DNA, among other subjects. As for whether or not Mr. Guede was an informant, it is a parsimonious explanation for why he did not get arrested for his prior wrongdoing.

George Washington University's International law program ranks 6th in the US. Hardly second tier.
Note: In a previous message I wrote Georgetown when I should have written George Washington. I am sorry for any confusion.

 

[christianahannah]

Actually, what you read in the TGCOM pages is the same argument tha can also be found in the appeal. The only additional info is the log connected to screensaver activity (which is not exactly the screensaver log however). This information is the only new thing. But would have been better for the defence if it wasn't there, in my opinion. It is quite dangerous. Using it is a really desperate move.

Can you explain why you think it is a desperate move on the defense's part?

The pages on TGCOM are only a part of the 100 plus pages filed by Raffaele's defense. Do you have any idea what information is in the other pages filed which were filed?

 

[tsig]

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.

I don't think the US will send a military mission to rescue Amanda.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I like Newsweek, but...

An "anonymous source" told you so?!

That's how you're going to refute the reports of a journalist with Newsweek?!

Let's ask Lowe if this meets the standards of his 'evidence based argument' test.

Well, Lowe?

treehorn,

Perhaps you want to bow down before the prestige of Newsweek and assume that they are infallible, but I do not. Here's why.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ABA and data release

I have no way of knowing whether any request was made or denied.

Nor do I have any formal training in the Discovery Rules of the Italian legal system.

That said, I am doubtful - in the extreme - that the Court would have allowed the prosecution to run afoul of those Rules and, to the extent that those Rules do not specifically address the "data files" in question, I'm certain the appellate courts will be forced to address the issue in the event such files are, in fact, both material and probative.

BTW, I wonder whether you, as a matter of principle, think it is "reasonable" for the defense to effectively waive their right to supervise the DNA testing in question only to 'cry foul' about said testing during the actual trial...

SNIP

Treehorn,

I have previously documented that release of the electronic data files is the worldwide norm yet was not done in this case. It would be surprising if Italy were out of step on the question of whether or not these files should generally be released. I have also previously documented that such files are indeed probative. For now let me reiterate that the ABA specifies that they should be released in their guidelines on DNA evidence.

With the generous help of Dr. Dan Krane, I have also previously documented how much more important having the files is to being present at the testing. It would have been nice had ILE given the defense sufficient prior notice of the testing, but ILE can redeem itself by turning over all of the relevant information now. Better three year’s late than not at all.

 

[Withnail1969]

Good point. How could Amanda's DNA not be on the knife tip if she was pricked with it?

And how could Meredith's DNA be on the knife when no trace of blood was found?

 

[Justinian2]

I don't think the US will send a military mission to rescue Amanda.

It has happened before!

Twenty-three Americans and two Italians were convicted in November in the 2003 kidnapping of the Egyptian cleric — the first legal convictions anywhere in the world involving the CIA's extraordinary renditions program.

But the judge at that time also acquitted three American diplomats, citing diplomatic immunity, along with five Italian secret service agents, including the former chief, citing state secrecy.​

If the appeal fails, I almost wish the USA would. I would like to imagine that the USA had basketballs.

No guilters were harmed in my latest imaginary rescue of Amanda.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't think the US will send a military mission to rescue Amanda.

Given Italy's level of corruption, a million or so dollars in the right pocket would secure her 'escape' from prison, I'm sure.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

When this news first broke I did some research and found a press release on SAP's web site that indicated they were giving out these awards. Because they were only a police union I was downplaying the significance.

Since you are saying that these are really official awards and not just a feel good gold star handed out by the union, I have to reassess my belief that the bumbling of this case was the action of a few individuals and see that it is a problem that permeates all of ILE.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?

Common sense suggests she would not have asked him to lie in a way that incriminated her, i.e., tell the police she went out when in fact she stayed home with him.

You are reading way too much into this "evidence." You can interpret it in the most incriminating possible light, if you choose, but your interpretation is merely that. It is not proof of anything, and it never will be.