Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Of course I understand the distinction. If the appeal is successful, I will change my mind. Until then she is a murderer by definition.

No, that isn't the definition. A murderer is someone who murders, not someone who is believed to murder.

With what confidence do you currently believe AK is a murderer? If your opinion is based solely on the court decisions, and not on direct examination of the case details yourself, then your confidence level shouldn't be extremely high, because there is a high reversal rate of first-level decisions in Italy. On the other hand, if you do have a high confidence level based on knowledge of the case, then merely hearing about the appeal decision shouldn't suffice to swing your opinion the other way; at most, it should confuse you to the point of indecision (if you have a very high confidence that court decisions are likely to be correct).

 

[shuttlt]

No, that isn't the definition. A murderer is someone who murders, not someone who is believed to murder.

With what confidence do you currently believe AK is a murderer? If your opinion is based solely on the court decisions, and not on direct examination of the case details yourself, then your confidence level shouldn't be extremely high, because there is a high reversal rate of first-level decisions in Italy. On the other hand, if you do have a high confidence level based on knowledge of the case, then merely hearing about the appeal decision shouldn't suffice to swing your opinion the other way; at most, it should confuse you to the point of indecision (if you have a very high confidence that court decisions are likely to be correct).

How high is the reversal rate?

 

[treehorn]

Aha! That resolves my confusion. I was pretty sure we'd been over this point thoroughly in the past and that as far as the evidence went Amanda had met Rudy at a party once at most, so when Treehorn found a valid source saying otherwise in black and white I was very surprised and of course admitted I was wrong.

However it looks like my memory was correct and Treehorn's facts were wrong, although on this one issue he cannot really be blamed since the translation he was working from contained an error.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Are you still feeling the effects of New Year's Eve or some such?

"Once at most"?!

I posted Amanda's own testimony for you yesterday: even she will admit to at least two encounters!

From Knox's Trial Testimony June 12, 2009

Re: Smoking Dope with Rudy

CP = Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba's lawyer)
AK= Amanda Knox


CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

..

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

I posted page 41 of the Court's judgment for you: regardless of whether the passage is referring to Marco or his friend Giorgio, ONE of them testified in open court that he saw Rudy socializing with Amanda "...two or three times...", one of which was the night that Amanda testified in respect of (dope was smoked at that 'party' in mid October, at time at which Amanda also admitted to smoking dope socially).

So between Giorgio's testimony and Amanda's testimony we have at least 3 or 4 contacts (2-3 at the cottage and 1 at the pub) - at least one of which entailed dope smoking - dating from mid October. (To say nothing of the fact Rudy was a fixture on the basketball court "just steps" from Amanda's cottage.)

Indeed, she'd only known Raffaele since late October and had only seen him for 6 days or so!

The rational thinker would conclude that Amanda and Rudy moved in the same milieu - it was not a case where they were strangers.

The point is not whether or how many joints they shared, the point is that the KNEW one another.

You, sir, claimed that Amanda did not know Rudy. You were wrong.

Your claim that they "met... once at most" is equally wrong.

The evidence, by ANY objective measure does NOT support your argument (which turned on the notion of the 'improbability' of Amanda getting together with 'a crook she did not know').

Are you now claiming that Amanda's own testimony in open court was somehow 'coerced'?!

Are you now claiming that Giorgio Cocciaretto's perjured himself?!

It appears you've taken leave of your senses, sir.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

It seems we have to.

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.

You seem to be making a project out of making these sorts of problems much harder than they actually are. Let's use your own example, the question of whether or not Amanda would have called the police if she had witnessed Rudy murdering Meredith, and let's ignore all the excellent reasons we have to think that no such thing ever happened in the first place.

What percentage of people like Amanda do you think would report a murder if they saw one? By "people like Amanda" I mean of course based an estimate of her personal characteristics heavily weighting the pre-smear-campaign facts about her life and how she was viewed as opposed to later claims. You don't have to be very precise. Myself I'd say maybe 99% or more, assuming they were the only one who saw. If you disagree we can talk about it, to be sure.

What percentage of people like Amanda do you think would, on seeing a murder, instead decide to join in? I don't know where to start on that one but I'm pretty sure it would have to be under 1%. I'm not being very scientific here but I haven't read about spontaneous murder pile-ons by near strangers ever happening so I'm going to assume it's pretty rare.

So when we are weighing up competing hypotheses to explain what happened on the night Meredith Kercher was murdered, we should obviously all else being equal be strongly disinclined to believe a story where she witnesses Meredith being sexually assaulted and stabbed and thinks "Bags next stab!".

We would need very strong evidence that such a bizarre thing happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

I talked about this in great detail earlier in response to a question by Komponisto - did you miss it? Anyway, it's here.

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

Sure - she had a whole life before this happened. She had friends, school reports, employers, and to my knowledge absolutely none of them said absolutely anything before the smear campaign that was consistent with the kind of mental pathology that leads to disorganised sex murders.

 

[lionking]

No, that isn't the definition. A murderer is someone who murders, not someone who is believed to murder.

Prisons around the world are filled with people who proclaim their innocence.

Your faith may be proven to be correct. But faith it remains.

 

[treehorn]

Aha! That resolves my confusion. I was pretty sure we'd been over this point thoroughly in the past and that as far as the evidence went Amanda had met Rudy at a party once at most, so when Treehorn found a valid source saying otherwise in black and white I was very surprised and of course admitted I was wrong.

However it looks like my memory was correct and Treehorn's facts were wrong, although on this one issue he cannot really be blamed since the translation he was working from contained an error.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Are you still feeling the effects of New Year's Eve or some such?

"Once at most"?!

I posted Amanda's own testimony for you yesterday: even she will admit to at least two encounters!

From Knox's Trial Testimony June 12, 2009:

Re: Smoking Dope with Rudy

CP = Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba's lawyer)
AK= Amanda Knox


CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

..

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

I ALSO posted page 41 of the Court's judgment for you: regardless of whether the passage is referring to Marco or his friend Giorgio, ONE of them testified in open court that he saw Rudy socializing with Amanda "...two or three times...", one of which was the night that Amanda testified in respect of (dope was smoked at that 'party' in mid October, at time at which Amanda also admitted to smoking dope socially).

So between Giorgio's testimony and Amanda's testimony we have at least 3 or 4 contacts (2-3 at the cottage and 1 at the pub) - at least one of which entailed dope smoking - dating from mid October. (To say nothing of the fact Rudy was a fixture on the basketball court "just steps" from Amanda's cottage.)

Indeed, she'd only known Raffaele since late October and had only seen him for 6 days or so!

The rational thinker would conclude that Amanda and Rudy moved in the same milieu - it was not a case where they were strangers.

The point is not whether or how many joints they shared, the point is that the KNEW one another.

You, sir, claimed that Amanda did not know Rudy. You were wrong.

Your claim that they "met... once at most" is equally wrong.

The evidence, by ANY objective measure does NOT support your argument (which turned on the 'improbability' of Amanda getting together with 'a crook she did not know' to harm Meredith).

Are you now claiming that Amanda's own testimony in open court was somehow 'coerced'?!

Are you now claiming that Giorgio Cocciaretto's perjured himself?!

 

[Mary_H]

How high is the reversal rate?

I don't know whether anyone has been able to find a precise figure. The rumored estimates are that up to 70% of first trial decisions are modified and about 1/2 are reversed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you still feeling the effects of New Year's Eve or some such?

"Once at most"?!

I posted Amanda's own testimony for you yesterday: even she will admit to at least two encounters!

You keep representing things as evidence which do not say what you pretend they do.

Amanda said she saw Rudy once at her place of work. Not that she talked to him, not that she met him, not that she smoked dope with him several times.

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

That "hashish was smoked" does not mean that Amanda smoked the hashish at that time, it does not mean that Rudy smoked the hashish at that time, it does not mean that Amanda and Rudy smoked hashish together at that time, and it does not mean that Amanda smoked dope with Rudy several times as you have claimed.

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

I posted page 41 of the Court's judgment for you: regardless of whether the passage is referring to Marco or his friend Giorgio, ONE of them testified in open court that he saw Rudy socializing with Amanda "...two or three times...", one of which was the night that Amanda testified in respect of (dope was smoked at that 'party' in mid October, at time at which Amanda also admitted to smoking dope socially).

So between Giorgio's testimony and Amanda's testimony we have at least 3 or 4 contacts (2-3 at the cottage and 1 at the pub) - at least one of which entailed dope smoking - dating from mid October. (To say nothing of the fact Rudy was a fixture on the basketball court "just steps" from Amanda's cottage.)

Try to keep up. You have already been informed that the translation you are using is inaccurate and that the testimony was of one meeting, and that the testimony came from a friend of Rudy's and was not corroborated by the boys who lived in the downstairs flat.

Indeed, she'd only known Raffaele since late October and had only seen him for 6 days or so!

The rational thinker would conclude that Amanda and Rudy moved in the same milieu - it was not a case where they were strangers.

Now you're making things up. You don't get to demonstrate one meeting and one sighting, and then make up the claim that they "moved in the same milieu" and hence "it was not a case where they were strangers". That's earning an inch and then helping yourself to a mile.

The point is not whether or how many joints they shared, the point is that the KNEW one another.

Hang on, you assert a prejudicial claim in bolded text as a fact, you get called on it, you make a deceptive post purporting to contain evidence to support your claim which in fact did not do so, and then when that doesn't work then suddenly it was never the point?

You claimed that Amanda and Rudy smoked dope together several times. That is the exact point we have been challenging you on for pages now and I'm sorry but you don't get to decide that it's all of a sudden not the point. It's been the point for some time now.

At best you are presenting as facts things which you do not know to be true, and at worst you are simply making things up and seeing if you can get away with it.

You, sir, claimed that Amanda did not know Rudy. You were wrong.

Your claim that they "met... once at most" is equally wrong.

The evidence, by ANY objective measure does NOT support your argument (which turned on the notion of the 'improbability' of Amanda getting together with 'a crook she did not know').

I'm repeating myself now for your benefit. At best this line of argument would make a rational person very slightly adjust their judgment of the probability that Amanda would team up with Rudy to commit sexual assault and murder. It would be an extraordinary claim even if they were friends, it's even sillier if they had met once and Amanda laid eyes on him one additional time while she was working, and it would only be slightly sillier still if they had never met at all.

If it pleases you to think that you've shifted the plausibility of them teaming up to murder Meredith from 0.001% to 0.01% or whatever (I think I'm being too generous to you there both on the absolute and relative probabilities) you can think so, but surely you understand that this doesn't get you anywhere close to convincing a rational person that such a thing happened?

Are you now claiming that Amanda's own testimony in open court was somehow 'coerced'?!

Are you now claiming that Giorgio Cocciaretto's perjured himself?!

It appears you've taken leave of your senses, sir.

Are you now just making things up?

 

[treehorn]

Now you're making things up. You don't get to demonstrate one meeting and one sighting, and then make up the claim that they "moved in the same milieu" and hence "it was not a case where they were strangers". That's earning an inch and then helping yourself to a mile.

What can I do to get you to read the evidence posted above?

Amanda and Rudy socialized together before the murder. They shared acquaintances. They were not strangers.

 

[treehorn]

That "hashish was smoked" does not mean that Amanda smoked the hashish at that time, it does not mean that Rudy smoked the hashish at that time, it does not mean that Amanda and Rudy smoked hashish together at that time, and it does not mean that Amanda smoked dope with Rudy several times as you have claimed.

As a 'trained thinker', do you think Amanda answer the question in bold type?



CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

 

[treehorn]

Try to keep up. You have already been informed that the translation you are using is inaccurate and that the testimony was of one meeting, and that the testimony came from a friend of Rudy's and was not corroborated by the boys who lived in the downstairs flat.

I guess you missed this part of my post:


...regardless of whether the passage is referring to Marco or his friend Giorgio, ONE of them testified in open court that he saw Rudy socializing with Amanda "...two or three times..."

 

[komponisto]

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.

This is a legitimate question, and I don't mind your asking it (especially as non-confrontationally as you did ).

First, I'll note that you already suggested a part of the answer yourself: you are unsure about the question under discussion, and have come here hoping to be better informed. So imagine what would happen if everyone who did have a strong opinion stayed away: you would be left with only others who were similarly uncertain, and the discussion would be deprived of exactly those potential participants who thought they had the best information to offer! (Your strength of opinion, or confidence level, is a direct measurement of how much information you think you have.) So part of the reason I'm here --the "altruistic" part, you might call it -- is to benefit those interested in obtaining whatever information I have to offer.

There is also a more "selfish" reason, involving my own curiosity about what goes on in other people's minds; better knowledge of this is obviously useful! To me, the correct answer in this case is utterly obvious, yet many people not only fail to see its obviousness, but even have a strong belief in the opposite conclusion. This is puzzling to me; from my point of view, these folks' truth-detecting machines are broken, and I'd like if possible to find out what the problems are and how to repair them.

Furthermore, it should of course be noted that there is a small chance that I could be mistaken in my own beliefs, and in that case someone may be able to make me aware of it; this is why it's most useful to conduct discussions in the most intelligent forums one can find. And, at the very least, my understanding of things may be improved, even if the most important beliefs remain unaltered (see my first post asking about the bra clasp).

Finally, there is also a small chance that I will be able to (help) convince someone of my view who would be useful to have as an ally in the fight to liberate Amanda and Raffaele, which is something I do in fact care about. Not only do I actually care about Amanda and Raffaele themselves, as individuals I find very sympathetic, but I also think as a general matter that raising awareness of this particular injustice (and perhaps other similar ones) could potentially have some salutary effect on public rationality.

So for all these reasons, I think that engaging in discussion of this has some use for me, despite my strong opinion. And of course it isn't actually that uncommon for people -- even sensible, rational people! -- to participate in discussions of things they already have strong opinions on.

 

[treehorn]

If it pleases you to think that you've shifted the plausibility of them teaming up to murder Meredith from 0.001% to 0.01% or whatever (I think I'm being too generous to you there both on the absolute and relative probabilities) you can think so, but surely you understand that this doesn't get you anywhere close to convincing a rational person that such a thing happened?

You made a probability-based argument that turned on the premise that 'Amanda did not know Rudy'.

Your argument just evaporated.

 

[shuttlt]

You seem to be making a project out of making these sorts of problems much harder than they actually are. Let's use your own example, the question of whether or not Amanda would have called the police if she had witnessed Rudy murdering Meredith, and let's ignore all the excellent reasons we have to think that no such thing ever happened in the first place.

Is this a logical argument based on facts?

What percentage of people like Amanda do you think would report a murder if they saw one?

Now you see it depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? How many people commit murder, almost nobody... can we go home now? Nobody is a killer!

By "people like Amanda" I mean of course based an estimate of her personal characteristics heavily weighting the pre-smear-campaign facts about her life and how she was viewed as opposed to later claims. You don't have to be very precise. Myself I'd say maybe 99% or more.

Again, I'm not really aware of much information on her that can be said to predate the murder and therefore is certain not to be influenced by an awareness of the impact it will have on the case one way or another. My neighbours daughter is a nightmare, but if she was in this situation I might well keep that to myself unless asked about it in court. Why would I? It would make things awkward as hell for one thing.

What percentage of people like Amanda do you think would, on seeing a murder, instead decide to join in? I don't know where to start on that one but I'm pretty sure it would have to be under 1%.

That seems to be based on your life experience rather than any facts. Quibbling I know since I share your belief that the number is low, but still.... Anyway, whose to say that we are talking about a scenario where Amanda and Rudy are sitting there doing needlepoint and listening to Brahms when Rudy bursts in waving a knife (see, I can add details to a scenario to make it seem silly as well)? What percentage of young people call the police no matter what when things get ********** up? Do honest honours students never accidentally run people over after a few drinks and drive away without telling anyone? Anyway, we are already moving into an argument about who thinks what is plausible, which is my point.

So when we are weighing up competing hypotheses to explain what happened on the night Meredith Kercher was murdered, we should obviously all else being equal be strongly disinclined to believe a story where she witnesses Meredith being sexually assaulted and stabbed and thinks "Bags next stab!".

Yes, I agree that my gut tells me that is unlikely, weirder things have happened, but I personally would be extremely surprised if this is what happened.

We would need very strong evidence that such a bizarre thing happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, I would require some quite strong evidence to believe the scenario you just described. Again though, this isn't a logical, or methematical argument. This is your gut and my gut, and your life experience and my life experience agreeing on one of the many possible narratives.

One of the things that has kept coming to my mind is Chappaquiddick. Good people from good backgrounds who know right from wrong do not always call the police when it matters. Sometimes their first instinct is to run, or try to avoid the unavoidable fallout of something that has just happened even though any fool can see it is only going to make things worse. My gut tells me that nice people, from good backgrounds are perfectly capable of not calling the police if they are afraid that what they will have to tell the police will reflect badly on them and they imagine there is half a hope in hell of not having to own up to anything.

Sure - she had a whole life before this happened. She had friends, school reports, employers, and to my knowledge absolutely none of them said absolutely anything before the smear campaign that was consistent with the kind of mental pathology that leads to disorganised sex murders.

Again, your gut tells you that we should be able to find accounts of her doing depraved things to squirrels (or something similar) if this was what happened. I'm happy for you, or me or anyone else to use their instinct about what is likely and what isn't. My point was that contrary to what had been posted, that is, perfectly ligitimately, what we are all doing. A lot of the posts, Halides's examples of other cases, are challenges to peoples gut instinct more than they are logical arguments and/or facts.

 

[komponisto]

Prisons around the world are filled with people who proclaim their innocence.

Your faith may be proven to be correct. But faith it remains.

Are you going to discuss the issue or are you just going to keep restating the fact that you don't share my opinion?

 

[komponisto]

Treehorn, suppose we were to use your definition of "know" and grant that Amanda "knew" Rudy. What follows from that?

 

[shuttlt]

I don't know whether anyone has been able to find a precise figure. The rumored estimates are that up to 70% of first trial decisions are modified and about 1/2 are reversed.

I vaguely recall seing figures like this quoted and a quick Google reveals these statements being made over and over in relation to the case. I wonder what the original source is?

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn, suppose we were to use your definition of "know" and grant that Amanda "knew" Rudy. What follows from that?

The death of Kevin_Lowe's probability-based argument premised on the mistaken belief that Amanda did not know Rudy.

 

[komponisto]

The death of Kevin_Lowe's probability-based argument premised on the mistaken belief that Amanda did not know Rudy.

How is Kevin_Lowe's belief actually mistaken, in terms of anticipated experiences, as opposed to his merely declining to use the word "know" to describe the relationship between Amanda and Rudy?

 

[komponisto]

I vaguely recall seing figures like this quoted and a quick Google reveals these statements being made over and over in relation to the case. I wonder what the original source is?

I recall that Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's attorney, gave a figure of 1/3, presumably derived from his knowledge and experience as a practicing lawyer.

Clearly it depends on what reference class of cases you look at; but it also seems clear that, however it is measured, the rate is significantly higher than in the U.S. or U.K. (and, I assume, Australia), which is enough information for the purposes of my earlier comment.