Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

From the English translation of the Mignini appeal:

"The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: a clean record carries weight when an offender is of advanced age; with the offenders here being barely out of the age of minority, a clean record has little or no significance in terms of mitigation"

So...the lead prosecutor believes that they have a clean record.

You make a good point, samba. To me, though, this is also another example of the arbitrary reasoning that has been applied in this case, similar to the judge telling Amanda that the fact that she hadn't left town in the first week had no bearing on the possibility that she might still leave town, and therefore she needed to be locked up.

This is an authoritarian approach that leads to people feeling helpless, discouraged, and eventually paralyzed. When the authorities have complete power over whether certain behaviors are or are not rewarding, those behaviors may be abandoned. In other words, someone like Amanda would begin to feel like it doesn't matter what she does (how "well she behaves") -- nothing good may ever come of it. She would give up trying to problem-solve.

It is helpful to keep in mind that some of the magistrates in Perugia are committed to this approach. It reminds us that being quiet and respectful -- not protesting loudly against them -- will not necessarily lead to a good outcome for Amanda.

 

[TomM43]

TomM43,

Your argument seems rather indirect. In any case, here is Frank's post on the subject. Inasmuch as Frank attended the trial, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he has written in this regard.

Well, of course it is indirect. I, along with the rest of the world outside the appellate court in Perugia, and the lawyers for the parties, do not have access to the trial transcript.

 

[Mary_H]

I wonder, if one were to take a poll, how many people on this forum have:

A) Used marijuana/cocaine
B) Received a ticket from the police
C) Carried a pocketknife
D) Watched pornography of a perverse nature (some might even deem all pornography as perverse)
E) Been characterized as shy/introvert

Oops. Forgot to add:

F) made a racial/ethnic slur

I have only been characterized as shy and introverted.

 

[Mary_H]

I wish they would answer my own obsession in knowing why the forensic team gift wrapped the mop and took it for a walk into MK's bedroom? Did they present the mop as a gift to someone in the bedroom? Something like - don't ever say I never gave you something? Why did they gift wrap only the stem but not the head of the mop? Why would anyone want a dirty old mop for a gift anyway? Did they bring the mop back to the lab gift wrapped also? These are questions I would like to know.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySCwcZD5Dk&feature=player_embedded

Sit down, Draca; I have some news for you: They didn't know what they were doing!

 

[Mary_H]

....As a photographer, I have had the priviledge of photographing a few couples in the act of love making, and I have also been privileged to watch a woman friend and 3 male friends take turns making love...

LOL, RWVBWL, no offense, but that sounds kinda gross to me.

 

[shuttlt]

It's not even a question of how "likely" or "unlikely" certain things (such as internalised false confessions) are in this case. It's a question of whether such things are a reasonable possibility. If every element of the case has an alternative reasonable explanation which does not involve Knox and/or Sollecito being culpable, this should count extremely heavily towards the case as a whole being one where there is reasonable doubt.

This doesn't address my post which was solely about how the case can't be reduced to logic and facts.

 

[The Third Man]

As a photographer, I have had the priviledge of photographing a few couples in the act of love making,
and I have also been privileged to watch a woman friend and 3 male friends take turns making love...

Eh?? Sorry, RWVBWL, maybe I've missed something here, but I've simply got to ask you to elaborate on this, and explain how it relates to the case?

 

[lionking]

How do you reconcile that with what you said here:

?

If a successful appeal would result in mere shoulder-shrugging on your part, shouldn't you be a little less quick to casually and contemptuously condemn Amanda in the meantime?

Do you ordinarily shrug your shoulders upon finding out you need to apologize?

Oh come off it. I will accept the result of the appeal. Will you? Be honest.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks for reminding me of this post, shuttlt; I meant to answer it.

This isn't reducable to logic operating on "facts" though. Is your impression of Amanda's character and what she would and would not do reducable to logic, is mine? There aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. On what basis can we say that injected-false-memories (or whatever) are a likely, or unlikely explanation other than on the basis of what we happen to find plausible? This is one detail in the case amongst many that the same could be said of.

Our explanations are based on what is plausible, but what is plausible is based on experience, much of which has been recorded and analyzed, not just "experienced" subjectively by individuals. A lot of study has been done, for example, on what happens in a coercive interrogation; a lot of data have been collected and measured. We're not just going off of what feels right. That's why so many people keep offering literature to bolster their arguments about these phenomena -- it really does contain valuable information.

People are unpredictable, but they are not completely unpredictable. In that sense, I would say that, yes, Amanda's character and your character are reducible to logic to a certain extent, but an open mind should be kept.

ETA: I meant to make the point that the case can be reduced to logic and facts.

 

[komponisto]

This isn't reducable to logic operating on "facts" though. Is your impression of Amanda's character and what she would and would not do reducable to logic, is mine? There aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. On what basis can we say that injected-false-memories (or whatever) are a likely, or unlikely explanation other than on the basis of what we happen to find plausible? This is one detail in the case amongst many that the same could be said of.

The fundamental question of rationality is "why do you believe what you believe?" All beliefs require justification of some sort, whether that justification takes the form of scientific studies or not. The fact that people have conflicting beliefs doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid; some may be better justified than others.

Yes, there aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. That doesn't mean that we can make whatever judgements we like, or are exempt from having to consider critiques of our judgements. Furthermore, there are more than enough published studies to show us that our intuitive judgements are often wrong.

I've noticed that virtually everyone who says something like "we can't be too confident in our judgements about human behavior" (which is what I think you're actually intending to imply) in reference to this case does so in order to argue that the probability of Knox and Sollecito's guilt is higher than (say) I think it is. Even putting aside the fact that members of the hardcore "guilter" fringe tend to be extremely confident in their model of human behavior (and hence would make better targets of this particular critique than those on my side), this is backwards. Uncertainty about human behavior should make our probabilities regress to the statistical default -- which means it should move them in the direction of innocence, since murderers are as a matter of statistical fact very rare.

 

[Mary_H]

The fundamental question of rationality is "why do you believe what you believe?" All beliefs require justification of some sort, whether that justification takes the form of scientific studies or not. The fact that people have conflicting beliefs doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid; some may be better justified than others.

Yes, there aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. That doesn't mean that we can make whatever judgements we like, or are exempt from having to consider critiques of our judgements. Furthermore, there are more than enough published studies to show us that our intuitive judgements are often wrong.

I've noticed that virtually everyone who says something like "we can't be too confident in our judgements about human behavior" (which is what I think you're actually intending to imply) in reference to this case does so in order to argue that the probability of Knox and Sollecito's guilt is higher than (say) I think it is. Even putting aside the fact that members of the hardcore "guilter" fringe tend to be extremely confident in their model of human behavior (and hence would make better targets of this particular critique than those on my side), this is backwards. Uncertainty about human behavior should make our probabilities regress to the statistical default -- which means it should move them in the direction of innocence, since murderers are as a matter of statistical fact very rare.

Which brings us full circle to LondonJohn's post:

"...If every element of the case has an alternative reasonable explanation which does not involve Knox and/or Sollecito being culpable, this should count extremely heavily towards the case as a whole being one where there is reasonable doubt."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This doesn't address my post which was solely about how the case can't be reduced to logic and facts.

Everything can be reduced to logic and facts.

Social guesswork based on your models of how people behave only has any validity at all if you employ it within a framework of the best logic and the best facts available. Your "impression of Amanda's character" is evidence, but facts and logic tell us that it is very weak evidence compared to other kinds of evidence like computer records, mobile phone records, autopsy data and so on. At best such social guesswork should very slightly nudge our probability estimates one way or another after we've looked at all the good evidence.

That said, those who rely on "impressions of Amanda's character" as a main plank of their belief-fixing process in my experience typically have some pretty funny ideas about how to fix the prior belief in what Amanda's character is actually like. They place far too little weight on information about Amanda from before her guilt was decided on by the Perugia legal system and before the ensuing smear campaign, and far too much weight on tabloid fiction, yellow journalism, police claims and guilter echo-chamber chatter that postdate the decision that she was considered a murderer by the Perugia police.

People don't change overnight. If all the pre-trial facts about Amanda indicate she was a harmless and well-liked young woman who trusted authority and whose worst sins were enjoying marijuana, enjoying her sexuality and not keeping her house completely clean, and all the "dirt" on her suddenly appeared post-trial when there was a motivation to smear her, I'm strongly inclined to think that the earlier, unbiased data is more likely to be accurate.

 

[komponisto]

Oh come off it. I will accept the result of the appeal. Will you? Be honest.

As I said earlier, my mind is already made up about this case, to a level of certainty where it is unlikely to be changed by further court decisions. (I would have to come across very surprising new information in order for my opinion to be significantly affected; Hellman agreeing with Massei, while it would be a bit surprising perhaps, wouldn't meet that threshold.)

I know enough about the case that convincing me of Knox and Sollecito's guilt would require new information about the case itself, not merely new information about somebody else's opinion on the case.

Now what about you? I'm new to the forum (at least as a participant) and haven't followed all of your previous posts, but you seem to be of the opinion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty -- to a sufficient degree of certainty that you are comfortable expressing a level of contempt for them that would apparently necessitate an apology if in fact they are innocent. But this is inconsistent with reserving judgement until you hear about the appeal decision; in that case you should (I would think) be hesitant to sneer at them as "murderers" in the meantime. So which is it? How strong is your current opinion?

 

[lionking]

Why are you so upset about me referring to AK as a murderer? Unless the appeal is successful, that's what she is.

 

[komponisto]

So you're not going to answer my question?

ETA: Do you understand the conceptual distinction between:
(1) whether AK killed MK

and

(2) whether someone (e.g. a judge or jury member) believes AK killed MK?

 

[lionking]

So you're not going to answer my question?

Why can't I refer to AK as a murderer?

 

[komponisto]

Why can't I refer to AK as a murderer?

See my ETA above:

Do you understand the conceptual distinction between:
(1) whether AK killed MK

and

(2) whether someone (e.g. a judge or jury member) believes AK killed MK?

 

[shuttlt]

Everything can be reduced to logic and facts.

Philosophically, I suppose... but do we really want to talk about that?

Social guesswork based on your models of how people behave only has any validity at all if you employ it within a framework of the best logic and the best facts available. Your "impression of Amanda's character" is evidence, but facts and logic tell us that it is very weak evidence compared to other kinds of evidence like computer records, mobile phone records, autopsy data and so on. At best such social guesswork should very slightly nudge our probability estimates one way or another after we've looked at all the good evidence.

But the raw facts tell us nothing, or at least very little if you remove any kind of integration with our life experience and ad hoc intuitive judgement. There are many different explanations for each of these facts. How do we settle on two, or one? I'm told that Amanda would certainly have called the police if she had been in the appartment when Rudy had stabbed Meredith. Is this based on logic and facts? It strikes me that it's based on what peoples guts tell them is and is not plausible. Sure there may be some quotes and cites thrown in along the way, but these things don't knit themseleves together so closely that one isn't left with chasms of unsupported guesswork.

That said, those who rely on "impressions of Amanda's character" as a main plank of their belief-fixing process in my experience typically have some pretty funny ideas about how to fix the prior belief in what Amanda's character is actually like. They place far too little weight on information about Amanda from before her guilt was decided on by the Perugia legal system and before the ensuing smear campaign, and far too much weight on tabloid fiction, yellow journalism, police claims and guilter echo-chamber chatter that postdate the decision that she was considered a murderer by the Perugia police.

OK. How about the bra clasp. What is the logical process, based purely on facts, that we can use to determine that it got their by contamination at the scene, or possibly in the lab? I recall a lot of "I find it highly suspicious that..." arguments, but I don't recall seeing a logical proof that didn't depend heavily on any particular posters personal judgement about what seemed plausible.

People don't change overnight. If all the pre-trial facts about Amanda indicate she was a harmless and well-liked young woman who trusted authority and whose worst sins were enjoying marijuana, enjoying her sexuality and not keeping her house completely clean, and all the "dirt" on her suddenly appeared post-trial when there was a motivation to smear her, I'm strongly inclined to think that the earlier, unbiased data is more likely to be accurate.

Was there much information on her that came out before the murder and hence can be regarded as untainted?

 

[lionking]

See my ETA above:

Of course I understand the distinction. If the appeal is successful, I will change my mind. Until then she is a murderer by definition. Why do you have a problem with my position?

 

[The Third Man]

As I said earlier, my mind is already made up about this case, to a level of certainty where it is unlikely to be changed by further court decisions.

I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational because it's not supposed to be, but I've seen others on this forum make similair statements. Can I ask, If you feel like this, why even discuss or debate it? I personally can't be that certain either way which is the very reason I come to forums like this in the first place, to hear others opinions and maybe offer some of my own. Are your goals different to that, i.e., is your motive some form of competitive debate and/or are you attempting to influence others, because, (and I mean this genuinely) there are probably better platforms/places to do that.