Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[samba]

Before the murder, both accused engaged in conduct that literally violated moral, municipal and/or criminal codes.

Just how narrow is your definition of "antisocial behavior"?

Mignini (btw...the lead prosecutor) in the prosecution appeals document states that AK & RF have no criminal history. He dismisses the significance of this because he feels that people their age haven't been on earth long enough.

So Mr. Treehorn, why does the lead prosecutor in this case not feel that AK & RS have any prior behavior issues....but you do?

 

[Mary_H]

That's a bit of a leap. One could safely say that one person in the police department revealed it, but it goes against typical procedure to suggest that those investigating this crime were, at the scene, forthcoming to all the witnesses and circle of friends, which frequently includes the perpetrator, and would disclose details about the manner of death.

Also, since the "What do you think, she ******* bled to death." was said on the afternoon of November 2, she hadn't read it in a UK tabloid that would not published until the following day.

There were a couple of instances of "how could she know that if she were not there during the crime?" in her trial testimony. In her testimony about why did she tell Meredith's English friends that Meredith was killed in the closet, after lengthy persistence of Mignini and the court to have her answer a simple question she finally conceded that her only source of information on the throat-cutting was RS. And the location of these conversations was a car--I assume with Luca and Paola, since they were the ones that gave AK and RS a ride to the Questura and were the recipients of RS' interrogation about what they had told the police, and what they saw at the scene.

I am not aware of any source of information that claims that any of the English friends, or the Italian roommates or their boyfriends--much less RS or AK--were told by the ILE that Meredith's throat had been cut.

Are you referring to typical procedure in the United States or in Perugia? Typical procedure in Perugia seems to be to call in the press and blab.

If one police source revealed to someone from The Sun, "This was a particularly nasty murder and the victim was found with a deep cut to her throat," how likely do you think it is that word did not spread like wildfire among all the photographers, as well as to all the witnesses, who were on the scene that day?

ETA: Meredith did not bleed to death and she was not found in the wardrobe. So why does anybody think Amanda knew what she was talking about?

 

[komponisto]

The translation of the Court's ratio is filled to the brim with references to transcripts, photos, reports, statements, etc. that none of us are privy to.

And each time Massei and Cristiani make such a reference, they describe what's in it. (Or what they think is in it, or what they think is important about it.)

This fact escaped your attention?

Nice formula.

It's called Bayes' theorem.

 

[treehorn]

You seem to be struggling terribly with a very simple concept.

A says "Lab B found X. Therefore X is true".

B says "Labs sometimes make mistakes. Therefore it is possible that X is not true".

A says "That some DNA labs, somewhere in the world, at some point in time, have made errors is in no way proof that this particular DNA lab made an error in this particular case!!!!!!!!!!".

What's A's mistake? A is arguing against a position that nobody ever took. In technical terms this is called arguing with a straw man.

If A was rational then A would now enter into a discussion of the facts surrounding the finding of X to be true, to determine whether a rational person should or should not believe X to be true based on the available evidence.

So, let's be clear, you were simply asserting that:

"Labs sometimes make mistakes. Therefore, it is possible that that X is not true.

Nothing more?

After a year of scathing indictments aimed at the DNA testing in this case, on Jan 3, 2011, you just wanted to point out to us that lab errors are "possible"?

I could have sworn you were just arguing that you were no longer in the realm of the merely "possible" but had reached the point where you were 99.9...9% sure notwithstanding the limited data set you've been working with.

 

[komponisto]

So, let's be clear, you were simply asserting that:

"Labs sometimes make mistakes. Therefore, it is possible that that X is not true.

Nothing more?

After a year of scathing indictments aimed at the DNA testing in this case, on Jan 3, 2011, you just wanted to point out to us that lab errors are "possible"?

I could have sworn you were just arguing that you were no longer in the realm of the merely "possible" but had reached the point where you were 99.9...9% sure notwithstanding the limited data set you've been working with.

Here's the logical structure of the dispute, as I understand it:

A: There is likely to be a laboratory error in this case because of [reasons listed on pro-innocence websites, in appeal briefs, etc...]

B: That's impossible! There have been no previous reports of contamination/error in this lab!

A: It's not impossible; contamination/error has been documented at other labs.

B: But not at this one!


B's error -- your error -- is not merely to ignore A's second statement, but also their first.

A's argument is not just that contamination is possible, but that it is likely; B attempted to refute this by claiming that contamination was impossible; for this reason it was necessary for A to point out that it is possible. The argument for likelihood comes mainly from the first statement.

 

[colonelhall]

I take your point, Mary, but my point is that the wild statements by likes of Kenneth Moore are often taken as fact by many Knox supporters. The 40 hours of non-stop interrogation, that was close to "waterboardiing'. You know what I am talking about.

I think that Treehorn has made his point and that Kev once again pops up and attempts to cloud the issue. Not at all convincing, in my opinion.

 

[nopoirot]

Unconvincing.

That's a bit snippety, lz.

The "I was there" comment was put into the record during Amanda's examination by Luciamo Ghirga, one of her lawyers. He refers to it as "the famous sentence." I surmise from this that the statement had been leaked to the media, with the implication that "there" referred to the cottage. I assign a 82.076% probability rating to my recollection that Amanda was not challenged during cross on her assertion that "there" had reference to Raf's place. Obviously, such a reading, if supported by the context, would have blown the case wide open.

 

[colonelhall]

As an aside, does anybody remember Kevin Turvey?

 

[treehorn]

And each time Massei and Cristiani make such a reference, they describe what's in it. (Or what they think is in it, or what they think is important about it.)

This fact escaped your attention?

There is not one photo in my copy of the translation.

No video recordings either.

As for the brief references to portions of statements, reports, transcripts of testimony, etc., without being able to examine the remainder of these documents, I am unable to understand the larger context in respect of the references.

As a result, I can't fully appreciate the Court's findings in respect of the documents missing from the translation.

Further, there is simply NO substitute for sitting in the courtroom to see/ hear all of the witness testimony - and all of the arguments advance by counsel - firsthand.

To presume that you could evaluate a witness without first watching that witness under cross-examination is to admit that you've never been in a courtroom.

 

[komponisto]

I take your point, Mary, but my point is that the wild statements by likes of Kenneth Moore are often taken as fact by many Knox supporters. The 40 hours of non-stop interrogation, that was close to "waterboardiing'. You know what I am talking about.

I think that Treehorn has made his point and that Kev once again pops up and attempts to cloud the issue. Not at all convincing, in my opinion.

What point? That the likes of a noise ticket, marijuana use, and sexually-themed comics make Knox and Sollecito sufficiently "antisocial" to render them natural suspects in the brutal death of their friend?

And who is Kenneth Moore? Do you mean Steve Moore?

 

[treehorn]

Here's the logical structure of the dispute, as I understand it:

A: There is likely to be a laboratory error in this case because of [reasons listed on pro-innocence websites, in appeal briefs, etc...]

B: That's impossible! There have been no previous reports of contamination/error in this lab!

A: It's not impossible; contamination/error has been documented at other labs.

B: But not at this one!


B's error -- your error -- is not merely to ignore A's second statement, but also their first.

A's argument is not just that contamination is possible, but that it is likely; B attempted to refute this by claiming that contamination was impossible; for this reason it was necessary for A to point out that it is possible. The argument for likelihood comes mainly from the first statement.

Wrong.

I am not refuting the notion that lab error is possible.

Nor am I refuting the notion that contamination is possible.

I am refuting the notion that a "rational" lay person can draw inferences from an incomplete data set and reasonably claim that he is "99.9...9% sure."

 

[komponisto]

As for the brief references to portions of statements, reports, transcripts of testimony, etc., without being able to examine the remainder of these documents, I am unable to understand the larger context in respect of the references.

As a result, I can't fully appreciate the Court's findings in respect of the documents missing from the translation.

I invite you to provide an example of a passage from the report that you "can't fully appreciate". I'm actually curious about what it is that you think you're missing by not having access to the source documents. (Or if, on the other hand, this is simply some sort of social modesty, deference to assigned roles in the tribe.)

Further, there is simply NO substitute for sitting in the courtroom to see/ hear all of the witness testimony - and all of the arguments advance by counsel - firsthand.

So, then, hypothetically: what would be an example of something you might find in the source material that would significantly change the beliefs you would arrive at by reading the material we do have available? (And remember: we don't just have the motivation document, we also have the defendants' appeals!)

I'm not saying it wouldn't be better to have all the material available (and it's truly scandalous that the Italian system apparently forbids the publication of court transcripts); but the idea that we can't come to a confident conclusion from the information we do have is just bull-oney.

 

[Mary_H]

I take your point, Mary, but my point is that the wild statements by likes of Kenneth Moore are often taken as fact by many Knox supporters. The 40 hours of non-stop interrogation, that was close to "waterboardiing'. You know what I am talking about.

I think that Treehorn has made his point and that Kev once again pops up and attempts to cloud the issue. Not at all convincing, in my opinion.

Has anyone here unquestioningly claimed that Amanda was interrogated for forty hours straight and that it was close to waterboarding? If so, this would be the place to address that poster's claim. Otherwise, the thing to do would be to address Steve Moore directly.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

PPPS I'm using the term "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense.

Sure. "Illicit narcotic" sounds dangerous and sinister. It suits your purpose, which is to smear Amanda Knox.

 

[treehorn]

Mignini (btw...the lead prosecutor) in the prosecution appeals document states that AK & RF have no criminal history. He dismisses the significance of this because he feels that people their age haven't been on earth long enough.

So Mr. Treehorn, why does the lead prosecutor in this case not feel that AK & RS have any prior behavior issues....but you do?

"Behavior issues"...

What is he (allegedly) getting at there...

Sporting flick knives, animal porn, street drugs, and throwing rocks at cars...not "behavioral issues"?!

And your source for this would be???

(I promise to read it, consider it and remember it. Unlike some, I will not 'pretend' to have forgotten your citation in the event you decide to refer to it again somewhere down the road.)

 

[komponisto]

I am refuting the notion that a "rational" lay person can draw inferences from an incomplete data set and reasonably claim that he is "99.9...9% sure."

All right then, exactly how sure do you think such a person can be about beliefs about this case? What's the upper bound?

What's your own probability estimate that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher?

 

[Mary_H]

There is not one photo in my copy of the translation.

No video recordings either.

As for the brief references to portions of statements, reports, transcripts of testimony, etc., without being able to examine the remainder of these documents, I am unable to understand the larger context in respect of the references.

As a result, I can't fully appreciate the Court's findings in respect of the documents missing from the translation.

Further, there is simply NO substitute for sitting in the courtroom to see/ hear all of the witness testimony - and all of the arguments advance by counsel - firsthand.

To presume that you could evaluate a witness without first watching that witness under cross-examination is to admit that you've never been in a courtroom.

If this is how you feel, then why are you so certain of your own convictions regarding this case? Why do you continue to insist that all this hearsay evidence about Amanda and Raffaele's histories allows you to evaluate them?

 

[Mary_H]

"Behavior issues"...

What is he (allegedly) getting at there...

Sporting flick knives, animal porn, street drugs, and throwing rocks at cars...not "behavioral issues"?!

And your source for this would be???

(I promise to read it, consider it and remember it. Unlike some, I will not 'pretend' to have forgotten your citation in the event you decide to refer to it again somewhere down the road.)

Surely you don't think you have cited any evidence that Amanda threw rocks at cars.

 

[treehorn]

Sure. "Illicit narcotic" sounds dangerous and sinister. It suits your purpose, which is to smear Amanda Knox.

I object to your accusation. Kindly withdraw it, please.

The word "smear" implies that I seek to misrepresent facts and/or defame the accused.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Per the Court's judgment (page 62), Knox has admitted to using narcotics.


FYI, 'Illicit' means 'forbidden by law' (not 'dangerous' or 'sinister').

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The guy stands by his story and it appears finally none in the innocent camp can mitigate the effects of amanda's racist, anti Semitic comments.

Just one more proof of her nasty, lying character.

Address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

Let me ask you something else: if Amanda is an anti-semite, why do you suppose a Jew - one who actually knows her well - traveled all the way to Italy, at his own expense, to testify on her behalf at her trial?