Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lionking]

Okay. Nice to see you stop by.

I'll pop by whenever I'm looking for a lecture in true skepticism. I know I'll find it here.

 

[Kaosium]

I'll pop by whenever I'm looking for a lecture in true skepticism. I know I'll find it here.

Try here if you want discussion of this issue on your terms, I think you'd fit right in.


perugiamurderfile.org

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kaosium,

What you describe may be the history of the case amongst some groups. Readers of the Daily Mail perhaps? On the original JREF thread that really is not how it happened. Most of us, myself included came to the story as blank slates when the OP appeared. A lot of work got put in to trying to understand the case. By no means all the people who put in a lot of work were convinced of her innocence. Fiona would be a classic example of a good analytical poster, who did the leg work and was not convinced. Perhaps in the past few months things have become clearer that were not clear then?

My own experience was simply coming into the original discussion thread, following it for several pages, and feeling compelled to point out a number of very basic logical errors in the case being forward by one side. Needless to say, that was the side that was arguing that the evidence showed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were guilty.

One thing I do happen to be good at is spotting a bad argument or an unfounded inference, and the guilter arguments were absolutely rife with them. You didn't even need specific knowledge of the relevant facts to spot the errors in many cases, because even if the facts they were claiming as true were in fact true, their conclusions still didn't logically follow.

However once I got involved in the discussion, it became increasingly evident that more was going on than fallacious arguments. Whilst the pro-innocence posters were usually (but not always) correct in their factual claims, and usually (but not always) meticulous in not repeating factual errors once they had been pointed out, the pro-guilt side kept asserting the same factually false claims over and over again, despite having very recently been shown chapter and verse proving otherwise. As is often pointed out around here there is a very large burden of proof to be taken on board before you can assert with confidence that a person is deliberately lying, as opposed to merely being mistaken or forgetful, but I genuinely think that some of the habitual mole-popper-uppers must have been either lying or mentally ill because the "mistakes" they were making were very, very hard to see as accidental.

Then there were the pro-guilt talking points that were frequently repeated but also blatantly misleading, such as "Amanda Knox knew Rudy Guede" and "Rudy Guede had never been convicted of a crime". Once it was clear that the people repeating those talking points knew very well that Amanda Knox knew Rudy Guede by sight but that there was absolutely no evidence that they were friends, and that there was very solid evidence of Rudy's involvement in burglaries with the same modus operandi as the allegedly "staged" crime scene, it became very hard indeed to maintain the belief that these people were participating in the discussion in good faith. I struggle now and I struggled then to find any explanation for the repetition of those talking points except a knowing and deliberate attempt to deceive casual readers.

Also both familiar and disturbing was the way the guilter echo chamber inhabitants whipped each other into a froth of confirmation bias where everything was proof Amanda was guilty, exactly as the twoofers see proof of a conspiracy in every single aspect of 9/11 and the moon landing deniers see proof of fakery in every single piece of footage from the moon landing. The way she wrote her emails, even down to the words she used, the position of the lamp, the position of the bathmat, the position of the mop, the meaningless luminol splotches, everything to these people was proof of guilt of such manifest obviousness that anyone who disagreed with their conclusions had to be insane as far as they were concerned. Nothing was ever ambiguous or inconclusive, let alone exculpatory.

The clincher was the release of the translated Massei report, a document which has a curious parallel with the Bible. Like the Bible those who profess absolute faith in its accuracy seem to be curiously slack in actually reading it, whereas those who believe it to be a flawed and factually questionable document have often read it critically and thoroughly. You may have noticed a couple of the surviving pro-guilt posters pointing in utmost innocence to the Massei report recently and saying "You just have to read it to find a coherent hypothesis that explains all the relevant facts as we now know them and presents a believable narrative in which Knox and Sollecito did it!". No more absolute demonstration of failure to have read the thing could be imagined.

At that point it seemed crystal clear that the conviction was based on patently unsound reasoning and outright disregard for scientific fact, and that its main supporters on the internet were preaching the doctrine of a quasi-religious cult that no longer had anything to do with evidence-based inquiry or reason.

After that when we proved quite thoroughly that Meredith Kercher could not possibly have died at 23:30 and that Amanda and Raffaele could not possibly have murdered her together at her actual time of death it was just gravy. The appeals team's revelation that the computer logs verify their alibi - that they were at home together all night - was nice but almost redundant.

 

[shuttlt]

On the back of a fag packet and because it interested me:

Double glazing blocks between 36dB amd 47dB of high frequency sound.
http://www.soundspec.co.uk/acoustic-products/acoustic-glazing/acoustic-glazing.html

The loudest scream seems to be 128 dB
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_loud_is_a_scream

Decibel level reduced by 6dB every time you double the distance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6390965_calculate-decibel-level-distances.html

Say, 128dB at 1m
=> at 40m = 1m * 2 ^ 5.32
So, we lose 5.32*6 = 31.92 dB due to the distance, giving the noise outside the window as 96.08 dB

Behind double glazing at 40m you would have between 49.08 and 60.8.

Knock off however many decibels seem appropriate for, say this not being the worlds record scream, or the sound drop before it makes it out the window.

A whisper is 15dB, a normal conversation is 60 dB.

I don't think it's obvious that she couldn't have heard something. You'd have to test it to be sure, and she could be deaf as a post. Any thoughts?

 

[Onofarar]

Correctionm to last post - instead of "where the stain came from" perhaps the better wording begins with "who".

 

[Withnail1969]

On the back of a fag packet and because it interested me:

Double glazing blocks between 36dB amd 47dB of high frequency sound.
http://www.soundspec.co.uk/acoustic-products/acoustic-glazing/acoustic-glazing.html

The loudest scream seems to be 128 dB
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_loud_is_a_scream

Decibel level reduced by 6dB every time you double the distance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6390965_calculate-decibel-level-distances.html

Say, 128dB at 1m
=> at 40m = 1m * 2 ^ 5.32
So, we lose 5.32*6 = 31.92 dB due to the distance, giving the noise outside the window as 96.08 dB

Behind double glazing at 40m you would have between 49.08 and 60.8.

Knock off however many decibels seem appropriate for, say this not being the worlds record scream, or the sound drop before it makes it out the window.

A whisper is 15dB, a normal conversation is 60 dB.

I don't think it's obvious that she couldn't have heard something. You'd have to test it to be sure, and she could be deaf as a post. Any thoughts?

We won't know the answer until the tests have been done. Where are you getting 40 metres from? I assume you're just accepting Machiavelli's unsupported guesstimate without question?

 

[RoseMontague]

For those who are interested, Meredith's father wrote an impassioned defence of his daughter here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.

It's important that we all remember the true victim of this despicable crime.

I think Meredith's father has a legitimate complaint in the way the press has sensationalized this case and Amanda Knox.

Last week, Knox’s parents were given star billing on the ITV breakfast show Daybreak, where they had free rein to profess their conviction that their daughter is not guilty.

Kurt Knox and his ex-wife Edda *Mellas have never expressed their condolences to our family for our grievous loss. There has been no letter of sympathy; no word of regret. Instead, I have watched them repeatedly reiterate the mantra of their daughter’s innocence.

He certainly has a right to state his opinion on Amanda's guilt. His argument seems to be that she was found guilty as the reason and even states an opinion that his family believes Amanda is "unequivocally, culpable". He gives no reasons for this opinion other than the verdict of the court.

I don't blame the Knox family for speaking out on behalf of their daughter.
It is also a fact that the Kercher's hired a lawyer to represent their interest in this case and this lawyer argued passionately for the guilt of Amanda Knox, before the verdict was rendered. My opinion is that the Kercher's were wrong to take this position and the verdict of the court is also wrong. I see the Kercher's as supporting those in authority that have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty and I do not find fault in the Knox family for giving the Kercher's the cold shoulder. I am certain that the Kercher's did what they thought was the best to see that Meredith got justice in this case. In my opinion, they have taken a position supporting a wrongful conviction and are continuing to do so.

 

[RoseMontague]

deleted wrong quote, reposted below

 

[piktor]

Really Katy? Just Google "Amanda Knox innocent" and see what you get. There is one poster on this thread who's cultish fixation with Amanda is creepy beyond belief. Please also address the Italian parliamentarian who wrote an entire book about his visits with her.

Also note the breathless photo of a jailed defendant for murder on the cover of that book.

 

[RoseMontague]

On the back of a fag packet and because it interested me:

Double glazing blocks between 36dB amd 47dB of high frequency sound.
http://www.soundspec.co.uk/acoustic-products/acoustic-glazing/acoustic-glazing.html

The loudest scream seems to be 128 dB
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_loud_is_a_scream

Decibel level reduced by 6dB every time you double the distance.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6390965_calculate-decibel-level-distances.html

Say, 128dB at 1m
=> at 40m = 1m * 2 ^ 5.32
So, we lose 5.32*6 = 31.92 dB due to the distance, giving the noise outside the window as 96.08 dB

Behind double glazing at 40m you would have between 49.08 and 60.8.

Knock off however many decibels seem appropriate for, say this not being the worlds record scream, or the sound drop before it makes it out the window.

A whisper is 15dB, a normal conversation is 60 dB.

I don't think it's obvious that she couldn't have heard something. You'd have to test it to be sure, and she could be deaf as a post. Any thoughts?

Yes, the scream came from inside, behind closed windows. You will have to factor that in.

ETA, the 40 meters may be measured from level to level and does not take into account the angle higher to lower, if I remember correctly. I think a straight line window to window measurement that was done was in the range of 70 meters, but I will try and find the reference.

ETA correct quote

 

[Withnail1969]

deleted wrong quote, reposted below

If the actual window-to-window distance is in fact 70 metres then ShuttIt's own calculation would seem to indicate that there is no way Nara could have heard anything, especially when you factor in the additional window at the cottage end of things.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unsafe convictions

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

lionking,

There are two pieces of evidence that have not yet been fully tested, the pillowcase stain and the knife, that would cause me and others to reconsider our views, depending on how the results came out. You have heard me say this before, and I am still waiting for your reply.

On the question of their wrongful conviction, do you believe (as I do) that complete release of the electronic data files is necessary for the preparation of a thorough defense? Do you believe (as I do) that complete release has not happened yet? If so, then there is no escaping the fact that the convictions are wrong in the legal sense--unsafe, as LondonJohn says.

A few days ago i provided some citations to the DNA forensics in the state of Victoria. You might find them of interest.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

However once I got involved in the discussion, it became increasingly evident that more was going on than fallacious arguments. Whilst the pro-innocence posters were usually (but not always) correct in their factual claims, and usually (but not always) meticulous in not repeating factual errors once they had been pointed out, the pro-guilt side kept asserting the same factually false claims over and over again, despite having very recently been shown chapter and verse proving otherwise. As is often pointed out around here there is a very large burden of proof to be taken on board before you can assert with confidence that a person is deliberately lying, as opposed to merely being mistaken or forgetful, but I genuinely think that some of the habitual mole-popper-uppers must have been either lying or mentally ill because the "mistakes" they were making were very, very hard to see as accidental.

Then there were the pro-guilt talking points that were frequently repeated but also blatantly misleading, such as "Amanda Knox knew Rudy Guede" and "Rudy Guede had never been convicted of a crime". Once it was clear that the people repeating those talking points knew very well that Amanda Knox knew Rudy Guede by sight but that there was absolutely no evidence that they were friends, and that there was very solid evidence of Rudy's involvement in burglaries with the same modus operandi as the allegedly "staged" crime scene, it became very hard indeed to maintain the belief that these people were participating in the discussion in good faith. I struggle now and I struggled then to find any explanation for the repetition of those talking points except a knowing and deliberate attempt to deceive casual readers.

(..)

I wonder why all your posts consists in rants about what the guilters do (the guilters i assume intended as a race, a collective concept).
You generalize about what partso of umanity under you labeles believe and do. It seems your aim is repeating this judgements on lables of people.

May I recall, you are the poster who believes there is no evidence Raffaele Sollecito actually wrote about having pricked Meredith's hand. You are also the one who calculates 21.3% the probability of A when events X Y Z are given, eah of them with a joint probability of 60% to imply A.
My calculation was also wrong, but havig reviewd formulas I found the probablity of A is still 80% if three events occur each implying 60% of certainity.
You are also the person who believes that, if just one element that you consider necessary in a sequence of events for guilt is not proven, then the whole of theories for guilt collapses. You fail to consider how: elements that you consider necessary are in fact only sufficent, and fail to consider that no specific combination of elements is necessary to convict. You also fail to consider tha principle that disproving a prosecution theory and conclude for innocence are two sepearte and different concepts (the first leads to the repetition - rimando - of a trial in the same level of first or second instance, the second leads to an acquittal in first or second instance).
You maybe don't consider even the fact that Rudy Guede and the other two defendants have been convicted on the basis of different theories, and their sentencing are both valid.

I would propose a reverse point of reasoning: rather than say one element in the prosecution theory implies "game over" and innocence, I would point out that the theories for innocence are based on a series of necessary elements, each of them unlikely. And if only one of them is false, they are guilty.
If Amanda's confession is a misleading of the investigation, she is guilty. If the burglary is staged, she is guilty. If the footprint is Sollecito's, they are guilty. If the bra clasp is not planted or not due to secondary transfer, they are guilty. If their recollection of facts is a series of lies, they are hampering the investigation and this is evidence of guilt. If the luminol footprints are not caused by something like a copper-based substance in a context unrelated to the murder, they are guilty. If Curatolo's testimony alone is true, they are guilty. If there is evidence on one of the two, the othr is guilty. If a cleanup occurred, they are guilty.
Those explanations are actually the ones logically necessary, the one actually on a linear logic series as Christmas lights on electrified wire. The logical tendence is that if on only one element the unlikely innocent explanation is false, the two are guilty.

 

[shuttlt]

We won't know the answer until the tests have been done. Where are you getting 40 metres from? I assume you're just accepting Machiavelli's unsupported guesstimate without question?

You lose 6dB every time you double the distance. If it's 200 metres, you lose 14dB. The distance isn't the biggest factor.

 

[Withnail1969]

If Amanda's confession is a misleading of the investigation, she is guilty. If the burglary is staged, she is guilty. If the footprint is Sollecito's, they are guilty. If the bra clasp is not planted or not due to secondary transfer, they are guilty. If their recollection of facts is a series of lies, they are hampering the investigation and this is evidence of guilt. If the luminol footprints are not caused by something like a copper-based substance in a context unrelated to the murder, they are guilty. If Curatolo's testimony alone is true, they are guilty. If there is evidence on one of the two, the othr is guilty. If a cleanup occurred, they are guilty.
Those explanations are actually the ones logically necessary, the one actually on a linear logic series as Christmas lights on electrified wire. The logical tendence is that if on only one element the unlikely innocent explanation is false, the two are guilty.

I'm surprised you're mentioning Curatolo. If Curatolo's testimony is accepted, they are innocent because he saw disco buses, therefore it wasn't Nov 1st.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think Meredith's father has a legitimate complaint in the way the press has sensationalized this case and Amanda Knox.



He certainly has a right to state his opinion on Amanda's guilt. His argument seems to be that she was found guilty as the reason and even states an opinion that his family believes Amanda is "unequivocally, culpable". He gives no reasons for this opinion other than the verdict of the court.

(..)

I think it's disrespectful and fals to assert he is making such argument. He is reporting his judgement in an article and not making an argument. In my understanding he asserts he thinks the convicted are unequivocably culpable because he has reasons to think so. Not everybody is intrested in discussing or demonstrating the ground of their conclusions and beliefs with public and bloggers. He is not making an argument of his reasons. He is stating his conclusions. Thus his arguments should remain out of your assessment.

 

[Withnail1969]

You lose 6dB every time you double the distance. If it's 200 metres, you lose 14dB. The distance isn't the biggest factor.

You probably think I don't know decibels work on a logarithmic scale. Again, where are you getting 40 metres from?

 

[Kestrel]

If the actual window-to-window distance is in fact 70 metres then ShuttIt's own calculation would seem to indicate that there is no way Nara could have heard anything, especially when you factor in the additional window at the cottage end of things.

Nara could have heard something else and interpreted it as a scream. For example a metal on metal screeching made by a tow truck.

Our memories are based not only on the events of the time, but what we have learned later. Nara heard something during the night. Later she finds out that a murder occurred. Her mind attempts to reconcile these facts into a coherent story.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm surprised you're mentioning Curatolo. If Curatolo's testimony is accepted, they are innocent because he saw disco buses, therefore it wasn't Nov 1st.

I said if Curatolo's testimony is true, then they are guilty.
I am not accepting things.

Meaning if he actually saw them sitting together on November 2, they are guilty.
Actully, by the way, this would be circumstantial evidence against them even if he saw them them on Nov 1, because it would be evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied on their whereabouts.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think it's disrespectful and fals to assert he is making such argument. He is reporting his judgement in an article and not making an argument. In my understanding he asserts he thinks the convicted are unequivocably culpable because he has reasons to think so. Not everybody is intrested in discussing or demonstrating the ground of their conclusions and beliefs with public and bloggers. He is not making an argument of his reasons. He is stating his conclusions. Thus his arguments should remain out of your assessment.

Fair enough. My opinion is that he has made an error in judgment. By hiring a lawyer that did his arguing for him he shows that his conclusion was made prior to the case being decided. He placed his family in opposition to Amanda's family by doing so.