Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

I was interested in you expanding on your views, being as you brought it up. I already know what I think.

The rationale for the right to silence is based on the notion that the machinery of the state is so vast (armies of police, CSI's, scientists with fancy labs, prosecutors, etc.) that a citizen accused doesn't stand a chance on a level playing field.

So, in an effort to level that field, the accused is afforded (inter alia) the right to remain silent as a means of forcing the state to make its case against the accused without any help from said accused.

In my experience, it's difficult to get an accused to exercise this right - they all seem to think they can sweet talk their way out. Vanitas vanitatum.

The self-serving 'diaries' of all 3 accused in this case were written in full knowledge that they would be confiscated and read not only in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion.

Their arrogance/ disregard for their right to silence has brought us all a lot closer to the truth.

 

[loverofzion]

So now we know the creepy killer thought of their cottage as practically 'home' and mighta had a crush on Amanda too?

Poor Amanda!

She once had a joint at a party Rudy was also at, this is only other connection anyone could find. He sometimes hung around the neighborhood, like any good creepy killer would. This does not indicate a romance.

Nobody said romance.
Merely that amanda knew Rudy from several occasions around town, and that they had shared a joint at least on one occasion.

 

[komponisto]

Treehorn, it seems to me that you are trying to imply things that are false, while hiding behind a interpretation of your words that allows them to be counted as true. In other words, not technically lying.

This is generally a form of deception; however, in your case, I'm not quite sure you don't actually believe the false propositions you're implying. So let me ask:

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy ever smoked pot together alone?

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy ever had a conversation that went beyond greetings, pleasantries, or formalities?

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy were close enough associates that their collaboration in a sex-murder is plausible?

Do you believe there is any information in the Massei report that implies that the answer to any of the above questions is "yes"?

 

[loverofzion]

I'd bet because she was there and knows she didn't 'make it up,' she agreed to what they insisted must have happened, tepidly, and confusedly. She didn't think she was accusing anyone, nor that her 'flashes' could be used as testimony.

She didn't place herself at the scene, the police did, and for a short while it looks like they got Amanda to believe it was possible. Then she came to her senses, now she's waiting for everyone else to.

How do you know this.
That her confession was tepid and confused, that the police were those who suggested to her that she had been at the cottage with Patrick, etc, that the poor darling didn't think her "flashes" of truth (whatever that is supposed to mean) couldn't be used against her.
More likely she was tired, scared and broken after having murdered her friend and those "truths" that she saw were real.

 

[Kaosium]

Rudy and amanda supposedly had smoked together on the boys' apartment downstairs. Hardly a party, and plenty of room for getting to know each other.

A "party" is exactly how Patrick's lawyer described it, and after all he lives there, and knows what college parties are like. The guys with the marijuana plants growing in the closet probably give one hell of a party where he lives too.

There's no evidence outside this that Amanda and Rudy even did know each other, so I'd guess no firm attachments were made. They may not even have spoken at the party outside that quick introduction going by that statement at the trial.

 

[loverofzion]

Treehorn, it seems to me that you are trying to imply things that are false, while hiding behind a interpretation of your words that allows them to be counted as true. In other words, not technically lying.

This is generally a form of deception; however, in your case, I'm not quite sure you don't actually believe the false propositions you're implying. So let me ask:

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy ever smoked pot together alone?

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy ever had a conversation that went beyond greetings, pleasantries, or formalities?

Do you believe that Amanda and Rudy were close enough associates that their collaboration in a sex-murder is plausible?

Do you believe there is any information in the Massei report that implies that the answer to any of the above questions is "yes"?

Noone is claiming that amanda and rudy were "close associates".
He was likely a drug connection, a local feature on the basketball court which she passed every day.
There was a combination of circumstances that joined the 3 killers that fateful night; drugs are speculated to have played a part due to the number and viciousness of the stabbings.

So it really is irrelevent whether rudy had smoked alone w/ amanda before, nor if they were good friends.

The prior connection of rg and ak has been established.

 

[loverofzion]

A "party" is exactly how Patrick's lawyer described it, and after all he lives there, and knows what college parties are like. The guys with the marijuana plants growing in the closet probably give one hell of a party where he lives too.

There's no evidence outside this that Amanda and Rudy even did know each other, so I'd guess no firm attachments were made. They may not even have spoken at the party outside that quick introduction going by that statement at the trial.

But by her admission she shared a joint with him then.

 

[Kaosium]

How do you know this.
That her confession was tepid and confused, that the police were those who suggested to her that she had been at the cottage with Patrick, etc, that the poor darling didn't think her "flashes" of truth (whatever that is supposed to mean) couldn't be used against her.

Her note and her 'statements' make it quite clear she's tepid and confused about it all. She "vaguely remembers?"

More likely she was tired, scared and broken after having murdered her friend and those "truths" that she saw were real.

What do you believe was true about what she 'saw?' I'd say most everything she 'saw' was wrong. It seemed to have 'matched' what the police thought had happen at the time though....

 

[komponisto]

Are you incapable of being convinced by due process of a properly constituted court in an advanced country?

No, I don't believe every court decision in an advanced country is correct. There is a nonzero error rate.

Unusual and controversial cases are pretty good places to look for the incorrect ones. This one lies in both of those categories.

So I think I'm allowed to look at the evidence for myself. How about you?

 

[Kaosium]

But by her admission she shared a joint with him then.

Cite?

That's not in what Treehorn posted. Read it again.

 

[loverofzion]

I apologize. My problem is that I have gotten close to the people in this case, the real live human beings. These people have become my friends, and I am proud to have them as friends. They invited me to their Thanksgiving dinner, their low-key New Years Eve party where we all sat around the kitchen and had a warm, friendly discussion while a small tribe of children ran circles through the house and played themselves to exhaustion. Then I get on the Internet and I see not just Amanda but her entire family pilloried, day in and day out, by people who have not the first clue what or who they are talking about. It makes me seethe with anger. It is so utterly contemptible and unfair.

Well isn't that heartwarming.
Let me get this, because the murderer's family had a warm, children-laden Thanksgiving dinner, then we should all accept that amanda and her family are all regular ol' guys with stalwart family values.

There can of course be no crime and no criminal coming from a family that celebrates like that

Just like on TV.

 

[komponisto]

What , like based on the opinions of posters on this site and others like it?

I think most thinking people would choose to go with the court decision.

So, then, how would "most thinking people" ever know when a court decision was wrong?

ETA: And I must say, that really sounds to me like what most unthinking people would do. Presumably, thinking people would...think.

 

[treehorn]

She went to a party he was at, that hardly constitutes 'knowing.' We do not know if Amanda smoked the spinello with him, merely that he was at the party. He might have left by the time it happened, he might have been hitting on someone else at the time. You know what it's like at a college party, there's lots of things going on.

You just missed the (big) point here: They KNEW each other!

Rudy was not, in point of fact, some unknown drifter/ crook that had zero connection to Knox.

They'd been introduced and socialized together, he'd become infatuated with her, he'd show up to see her where she worked, she knew him longer than she'd known Raffaele, etc..

 

[lionking]

No, I don't believe every court decision in an advanced country is correct. There is a nonzero error rate.

Unusual and controversial cases are pretty good places to look for the incorrect ones. This one lies in both of those categories.

So I think I'm allowed to look at the evidence for myself. How about you?

So if the appeal is dismissed the court is wrong?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What you are calling "loaded terminology" is merely legal terminology for the drugs Knox has admitted to using. (As I have already explained to you.)

Yes, she smoked pot. In the US, pot is classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, a designation reserved for substances that are considered highly dangerous and addictive and have no recognized medical value. But it's still pot.

Further, I have made it very clear to you that I do not seek to "smear" the accused and/or misrepresent any of the evidence adduced at trial.

The evidence adduced at the trial included Andrew Seliber's testimony that Amanda received the noise ticket because she talked to the police on behalf of the group, who later reimbursed her for the cost because she was not personally responsible for the problem.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/407194_amandaknoxtrial13.html

But your description is as follows:

- Municipal Court of Seattle "finding" that Knox "committed" the civil infraction/ quasi-criminal "offense" of "residential deisturbance" in connection with a rock-throwing incident/ complaints from frightened neighbors

Where did you get the idea that the neighbors were frightened? Was that adduced at the trial? Did anyone go to Perugia to testify that they were frightened of Amanda because she was throwing rocks? Did anyone testify that Amanda's personal behavior contributed to the disturbance?

You also write:

- Knox taunted a Jewish coworker about "her people" (of German ancestry) "killing his people" (the story has never been retracted)

Was that adduced at the trial? My understanding is that it came out in a minor Seattle publication as the uncorroborated statement of someone whose full identity the reporter declined to provide. What was adduced at the trial was different: Andrew Seliber, a Jewish friend of Amanda, spent his own money so he could testify to Amanda's good character, kind nature, and lack of personal involvement in the noise disturbance.

You write:

- Knox posted the 'stranger on a train incident' where her family could see it (to their dismay/ disgust)

Was this adduced at the trial? Did the subject come up at all during the trial? How do you know Amanda's family was dismayed or disgusted? According to Amanda's sister, who was present on the train, Amanda was joking when she wrote about that:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

You say you don't seek to smear Amanda, but it appears you are emphasizing a handful of dubious reports while ignoring other, better-informed sources who say these reports are not true - she didn't have sex on a train, she's not an anti-semite, she did not contribute to whatever disturbance caused the police to issue a ticket. But even if all of it were true, which it's not, it still would not constitute evidence that she killed her roommate. So what is your objective with all of this? What is your point?

 

[loverofzion]

So you think there's important information not in the motivation document, do you?

In which case, why didn't Massei and Cristiani see fit to mention it?

Do you have access to this mysterious treasure-trove of hidden evidence of guilt that somehow didn't make it to the internet?



Those "limitations" are insignificant. If there were strong evidence of guilt, we would have heard about it.

Low prior probability of guilt + not much evidence of guilt = low posterior probability of guilt. You can be offended at the "certainty" of the latter quantity all you like; it doesn't change the math.

Which according to you adds up to 99.9% certainty of your convictions.

Are you always so sure of your opinions?

 

[komponisto]

Are you always so sure of your opinions?

No.

 

[loverofzion]

If anyone really wants to know, this claim most likely derives from the following passage of the Massei report (p. 27 of the original, translation mine):



Note that Rudy is not specifically included here (!), although since he was a regular visitor to the lower floor we can infer that he and Amanda MAY possibly at some point have been in the same room, along with a number of other people, while spinelli were being made use of.

Treehorn's claim is thus a highly misleading stretch of the record. (Surprise, surprise.)

Not so misleading in fact.
If in fact rudy and amanda were known to have smoked pot in the boys' apt, then it is more than likely their paths crossed during said activities.
Amanda herself testified she had smoked downtairs with friends.

 

[Kaosium]

You just missed the (big) point here: They KNEW each other!

Rudy was not, in point of fact, some unknown drifter/ crook that had zero connection to Knox.

That's a pretty good description of someone who has only been introduced to you at a party.

They'd been introduced and socialized together, he'd become infatuated with her, he'd show up to see her where she worked, she knew him longer than she'd known Raffaele, etc..

Those were Rudy's fantasies, corroborated by no one else, like the people who lived there. It's kinda creepy if you ask me.

 

[loverofzion]

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?

And who might that be?
And how do we know it was at "his own expense"?