Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

The Cartwheel of Doubt - The Watergate spoke is back again

Such a shame that nobody can listen to the tapes of this interrogation, isn't it..............

And so the ever spinning Cartwheel of Doubt comes back to "the missing tapes" - a subset of the fixation on the 'internalized false confession' / 'waterboarding' [IFS/Wb] trope both of which have been dealt with over and over and over and over and over and over again on this thread.

I believe you have even used this actual phrase before in this precise context at least once already without making any further argument.

It puts your false claim here in context and actually proves* the point that you seek to contest.

I see that the latest groupthink mantra is that this thread is going round in circles and has nothing new of value

<snip>

Why is this false ?
Not alone have I repeatedly highlighted the repetitive nature, often with links, of the Foaker arguments on this thread ( quadraginta recently has referred to it also ) but this has been constantly pointed out since at least last June and probably much earlier.

* See also 'Groundhog Day'

.

 

[Danceme]

Maybe she did, ten or twenty times even, but perhaps they didn't listen, called her a liar, and threatened her some more. Raffaele made his statement at 9:40, it was at 1:45 AM that Amanda broke down, that's four hours later. They doubtless went over this again and again, each time escalating the ante. She'd be in jail thirty years, she'd never see her mommy again.

What if she started to believe it? Why would Raffaele lie, why would the police lie about having 'hard evidence' she was at the scene of a crime? What is she supposed to think? What if she just freaked out and believed them for a little while?

I agree, it could have happened that way. I'm just not convinced it did.

First off, I'm not a "firm believer" in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. I lean towards believing that they had nothing to do with the murder (or, by extension, any post-murder clean-up), but at this point it appears that nobody except Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably Guede) truly know whether or not they are innocent*.

But, as I've discussed before, if the state (or anyone, for that matter) brings an accusation against a person or persons, then it's entirely incumbent upon the accusers to provide proof of the accusation. In the case of criminal matters in Italy in 2007, proof must be provided beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. And the one thing that I'm very confident of is that there was insufficient evidence offered in the first trial to prove the guilt of Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where I stand - and that's also the only decision that the courts have it within their power to make (guilty or not guilty).

I don't really understand your point about Filomena's room. It was in a mess. You seem to have illogically jumped to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito made special mention of this because it was in contrast to its "usual" state. Who knows how many times Knox had even been into Filomena's room before? And I'm suspecting Sollecito had never been in that room before 2nd November. And even if Filomena "usually" kept her room fairly tidy, why couldn't she have left it messy after (by her own admission) rushing to get ready on the 1st? And what if someone breaking in knocked the wardrobe on his way in, thereby increasing the visible mess?

I'd also caution you (again) that inconsistencies in Knox's and Sollecito's accounts of the morning of the 2nd November cannot be sufficient to convict them of murder - unless perhaps they were caught in a lie which clearly indicated evasiveness or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. And of course most of the other players in this drama made errors in their recollection**. It's natural, especially when emotions became so dramatically heightened by the mounting suspicion during the morning, followed by the horrific discovery of the murder.

* If the computer system files show human interaction throughout most of the night of 1st/2nd November, then I will evolve to holding a belief in Sollecito's innocence, and it would also greatly strengthen my belief in Knox's innocence.

** Filomena, for example, got details of the telephone exchange with Knox incorrect. This is not to denigrate Filomena, but it's intended to illustrate just how easily people can get confused in such dramatic circumstances.

If you are not a firm believer, why are all of your arguments attempts to prove their innocence, with the prerequisite denigration of all aspects of the investigation? I've yet to see you speculate even once on how any of the evidence can actually imply guilt instead, so what are you not convinced of?

Knox lived in the house with Filomena for two months. I would think she knew her habits fairly well and if Filomena was normally neat, the mess was in contrast to its "usual" state. I find it doubtful she trashed her room just getting ready to go out because this implies for me a generally messy person whose messy room would elicit no such comment from Knox and Sollecito. I know it's a small point but.....it makes sense to me. I suppose it's possible the clothes and things were strewn around during a "real" break-in which Meredith interrupted by coming home, but that would mean I'd have to accept the notion Rudy picked what has always been for me the least desirable way of getting in, Filomena's window, and yes I've read all the attempts to make it sound easy.

I do find the inconsistencies in their stories more than a little odd, not sure why you are so fully accepting of them, but it isn't the biggest thing for me.

 

[christianahannah]

Did you see her ridiculous handling of the mop? How about the sampling she did in the bathroom.?

The mop was collected on December 18 and I believe tested negative for any DNA. Whether it was handled correctly or not, I cannot say. Members of the defense were present or viewed the December 18 collection so I guess they will have a record of what was done.

I am unsure if it was Brocci or Stefanoni or both who were responsible for evidence collection in the small bathroom on November 2 or 3. Brocci testified that she was responsible for collection in the small bathroom but did Stefanoni also help?

 

[Danceme]

With what confidence do you expect this? Remember, there is a great deal of variation of human personalities and ways people react to stress. What percentage of innocent people do you think would react the way you suggest, and what percentage do you think would react the way AK did? (And what percentage would react in a different way entirely?)

No matter what you think, mysteries cannot always be solved by quoting statistics. You yourself are unable to predict the percentage of people who would react in either way. Even if 99% of the people would react as you think, someone has to be that other 1% don't they?

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree, it could have happened that way. I'm just not convinced it did.



If you are not a firm believer, why are all of your arguments attempts to prove their innocence, with the prerequisite denigration of all aspects of the investigation? I've yet to see you speculate even once on how any of the evidence can actually imply guilt instead, so what are you not convinced of?

Knox lived in the house with Filomena for two months. I would think she knew her habits fairly well and if Filomena was normally neat, the mess was in contrast to its "usual" state. I find it doubtful she trashed her room just getting ready to go out because this implies for me a generally messy person whose messy room would elicit no such comment from Knox and Sollecito. I know it's a small point but.....it makes sense to me. I suppose it's possible the clothes and things were strewn around during a "real" break-in which Meredith interrupted by coming home, but that would mean I'd have to accept the notion Rudy picked what has always been for me the least desirable way of getting in, Filomena's window, and yes I've read all the attempts to make it sound easy.

I do find the inconsistencies in their stories more than a little odd, not sure why you are so fully accepting of them, but it isn't the biggest thing for me.

Filomena was in a big hurry at the time she was leaving and was planning on being gone for 2 days. To me it looks like she was trying to find what clothes to take and get her makeup together and was in too much of a hurry to straighten up. This is a quote from the Micheli report that seems to confirm this scenario.

R. argued that there were certainly valuable items, including a laptop, a pair of sunglasses and some gold jewelry, stored in a drawer: a look surface, it seemed that nothing was missing, except perhaps some article makeup.As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open: the shutters, but can not be hundred percent sure, without thought of them still closed both since left the tax met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but with your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. who was celebrating his birthday), but was then removed in a hurry because she was already late.

 

[komponisto]

No matter what you think, mysteries cannot always be solved by quoting statistics.

I didn't quote any statistics. I asked what your beliefs were about what those statistics would show, if they were ever collected.

I'm trying to remind you that a belief is like a thermometer reading, not an on-off switch. There's a big difference between being 51% sure that an innocent Amanda Knox would have reacted in a certain way and being 99% sure. Where do you fall on the spectrum?

If, for, example, you thought that 60% of innocent people in her position would say "Raffaele's a liar!", and 30% would break down in confusion and act like AK acted, then AK's behavior wouldn't be particularly strong evidence of guilt.

If you think it is strong evidence, then you are very likely severely underestimating the proportion of people who would react that way when innocent. (You may also be overestimating the proportion who would act that way when guilty.)

 

[RoseMontague]

And so the ever spinning Cartwheel of Doubt comes back to "the missing tapes" - a subset of the fixation on the 'internalized false confession' / 'waterboarding' [IFS/Wb] trope both of which have been dealt with over and over and over and over and over and over again on this thread.

I believe you have even used this actual phrase before in this precise context at least once already without making any further argument.

It puts your false claim here in context and actually proves* the point that you seek to contest.




Why is this false ?
Not alone have I repeatedly highlighted the repetitive nature, often with links, of the Foaker arguments on this thread ( quadraginta recently has referred to it also ) but this has been constantly pointed out since at least last June and probably much earlier.

* See also 'Groundhog Day'

.

Nice to see you back platonov. Groundhog Day is one of my favorites.

 

[platonov]

'Bayes Theorem' & 'Quantum healing'

With what confidence do you expect this? Remember, there is a great deal of variation of human personalities and ways people react to stress. What percentage of innocent people do you think would react the way you suggest, and what percentage do you think would react the way AK did? (And what percentage would react in a different way entirely?)

Hey K

Welcome to the the thread.

While your earlier 'probability' argument seems to be a rehash of the much used 'nice white kids don't commit murder' it still bring a smile as for some reason the term 'Bayes Theorem' as used in your arguments calls to mind the phrase 'Quantum healing'.

And to see it used in an argument which contains almost no numbers, well that is a surprise and an added bonus. Not that I can fault you on that - I'm guessing your background isn't in math's & as such is best to avoid the whole numbers area.

PS The p value I apply to the veracity of this post is 1.245896375 +/- 0.25 The 0.25 'error bar' is a standard correction we apply to all made up numbers.

.

 

[komponisto]

Hey K

Welcome to the the thread.

While your earlier 'probability' argument seems to be a rehash of the much used 'nice white kids don't commit murder'

Nice kids sometimes commit murder, but only very rarely. Believing that a nice person committed murder requires extremely strong evidence.

it still bring a smile as for some reason the term 'Bayes Theorem' as used in your arguments calls to mind the phrase 'Quantum healing'.

Whether it makes you smile or not, Bayes' Theorem is still true. That's one of the nice things about mathematics: it's invariant under changes of facial expression.

I'm guessing your background isn't in math's.

You sure guessed wrong on that one.

 

[platonov]

Nice to see you back platonov. Groundhog Day is one of my favorites.

So I have noticed RM, so I have noticed. And you are not alone !

Have any shiny new spokes been added to the cartwheel in my absence ??

I see we have a new thread - most disappointing that my ideas for new titles weren't used. Who do you have to know around here to get a thread title changed ?

 

[Danceme]

Filomena was in a big hurry at the time she was leaving and was planning on being gone for 2 days. To me it looks like she was trying to find what clothes to take and get her makeup together and was in too much of a hurry to straighten up. This is a quote from the Micheli report that seems to confirm this scenario.

All he confirmed is that she left in a hurry, not that she virtually trashed her room on the way out.

I didn't quote any statistics. I asked what your beliefs were about what those statistics would show, if they were ever collected.

I'm trying to remind you that a belief is like a thermometer reading, not an on-off switch. There's a big difference between being 51% sure that an innocent Amanda Knox would have reacted in a certain way and being 99% sure. Where do you fall on the spectrum?

If, for, example, you thought that 60% of innocent people in her position would say "Raffaele's a liar!", and 30% would break down in confusion and act like AK acted, then AK's behavior wouldn't be particularly strong evidence of guilt.

If you think it is strong evidence, then you are very likely severely underestimating the proportion of people who would react that way when innocent. (You may also be overestimating the proportion who would act that way when guilty.)

I really don't even see how I can respond to this.

 

[Dan O.]

Logical explanations to contradictions such as above go a long way toward convincing those who swing back and forth that they really are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Such explanations have been presented and you've apparently ignored them. How are you going to see the truth if you won't open your eyes?


Filomena's window was chosen because it was the most logical point of entry for the perpetrator at the time. Claiming otherwise has no evidentiary value because if it is illogical for an actual break-in, it is illogical for a staged break-in.

If the clothes were on the floor before the crime, the window glass is going to fall on them. If the cloths were thrown to the floor after the break-in, additional glass can fall out of the broken window and it would land on top of the pile of clothes which were directly under the broken window.

We don't have a record of the interview with Filomena that reconstructs the state of the room as it was before the crime. This would be instrumental in ferreting out the truth. Who's fault is it that this record doesn't exist?

We don't contemporaneous notes and photographs showing the condition of the wall and grounds under the window. These would be instrumental in reconstructing the truth. Who's fault is it that these records don't exist?

Do you at least accept that the rock was thrown from outside? There isn't any other plausible explanation for the evidence. Do you really think that someone stood in the half open window (standing right where the bag was that the rock eventually ended up in) and broke the window with enough force to spread glass throughout the room? Why didn't glass fall to the ground outside? All similar attempts to explain how the window could have been broken from the inside fall apart. The simplest explanation is that the rock was thrown through the window from the outside.

Have you looked at the photographs of Filomena's room? There is clutter on the desk and night table. Do you think someone sat there and meticulously rearranged these items to make it look cluttered while there is the dead semi-naked body of one of the residents in another room and another resident could walk in at any time?

If Filomena's room was tossed to make it look like a burglary, why weren't the other rooms tossed too? Laura's room was in comparison kept in immaculate shape. That's why her open drawer and the slight wrinkles on the bed spread stand out as if somebody were looking for something. Filomena's drawer on the bedside table had been opened too. The simple explanation is that someone opened drawers and looked under the beds in each of the rooms. The only added disorder in Filomena's room is the broken window and knocking over the clothes under the window (plus some of the items may have been picked up afterwards by Filomena and tossed on the bed).

Amanda and Raffaele were describing the condition of Filomena's room to people they were calling over to see for themselves. It's ludicrous to say they were lying about the mess.

 

[platonov]

All he confirmed is that she left in a hurry, not that she virtually trashed her room on the way out.



I really don't even see how I can respond to this.

Its easy if you have a math's background - I'm unfortunately at a loss also as while mine covered 'imaginary numbers' I didn't take the course on 'made up numbers' - that was in theology or philosophy I think

 

[komponisto]

I really don't even see how I can respond to this.

You can respond by giving some idea of how strong your belief is. How confident are you that an innocent person would not have reacted as AK did? Slightly? Somewhat? Very? Extremely?

If you knew nothing else about the case other than AK's background, the fact that her roommate was murdered, and how her interrogation proceeded, how strongly would you believe in her guilt?

 

[Justinian2]

Terrorist: If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. ... If you call me a terrorist, then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People,Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen

The guy I just quoted (Jared Lee Loughner) thought everybody else was stupid. The point is that not everybody that calls others stupid is playing with a full deck.

 

[platonov]

'The Bell Curve' vs 'Bayes Theorem'

Nice kids sometimes commit murder, but only very rarely. Believing that a nice person committed murder requires extremely strong evidence.

Whether it makes you smile or not, Bayes' Theorem is still true. That's one of the nice things about mathematics: it's invariant under changes of facial expression.

You sure guessed wrong on that one.

If you say so - But if you are just going to use terms as opposed to actual maths in your arguments can I suggest that 'The Bell Curve' might be more appropriate than 'Bayes Theorem'.

 

[komponisto]

If you say so - But if you are just going to use terms as opposed to actual maths in your arguments can I suggest that 'The Bell Curve' might be more appropriate than 'Bayes Theorem'.

Bayes' theorem is "actual maths".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So if we ignore the word of the police, what proof do we have that there was a break-in at all? And not for example a vandal throwing a rock at the window.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, but I'll answer it anyway.

There is additional weak, direct evidence of a break-in (as opposed, I assume, to a murderer entering by the front door). The glass on the window sill is consistent with someone manually removing chunks from the broken window to facilitate access to the latch, and the asymmetry of the hole in the glass fits with this idea. Clothes in Filomena's room were moved, with glass found above and below them. There's also the open drawer.

Further the break-in is consistent with Rudy's known habit of breaking into buildings by throwing a rock through a second storey window in order to steal, while in possession of a knife.

Lastly Rudy's initial story about what happened that night has him at home with Meredith for some time before she is murdered, but the stomach contents evidence indicates strongly that this cannot possibly be true as she almost certainly was attacked very shortly after she returned home. If he was trying to explain the places his DNA or fingerprints might have been found, as seems likely, then he would have carried out the acts mentioned in his story, and the only way he would have had time to do so before Meredith got home was if he broke in.

Overall I believe the theory that there was a real break-in best explains the facts.

 

[nopoirot]

First off, I'm not a "firm believer" in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. I lean towards believing that they had nothing to do with the murder (or, by extension, any post-murder clean-up), but at this point it appears that nobody except Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably Guede) truly know whether or not they are innocent*.

But, as I've discussed before, if the state (or anyone, for that matter) brings an accusation against a person or persons, then it's entirely incumbent upon the accusers to provide proof of the accusation. In the case of criminal matters in Italy in 2007, proof must be provided beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. And the one thing that I'm very confident of is that there was insufficient evidence offered in the first trial to prove the guilt of Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where I stand - and that's also the only decision that the courts have it within their power to make (guilty or not guilty).

I don't really understand your point about Filomena's room. It was in a mess. You seem to have illogically jumped to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito made special mention of this because it was in contrast to its "usual" state. Who knows how many times Knox had even been into Filomena's room before? And I'm suspecting Sollecito had never been in that room before 2nd November. And even if Filomena "usually" kept her room fairly tidy, why couldn't she have left it messy after (by her own admission) rushing to get ready on the 1st? And what if someone breaking in knocked the wardrobe on his way in, thereby increasing the visible mess?

I'd also caution you (again) that inconsistencies in Knox's and Sollecito's accounts of the morning of the 2nd November cannot be sufficient to convict them of murder - unless perhaps they were caught in a lie which clearly indicated evasiveness or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. And of course most of the other players in this drama made errors in their recollection**. It's natural, especially when emotions became so dramatically heightened by the mounting suspicion during the morning, followed by the horrific discovery of the murder.

* If the computer system files show human interaction throughout most of the night of 1st/2nd November, then I will evolve to holding a belief in Sollecito's innocence, and it would also greatly strengthen my belief in Knox's innocence.

** Filomena, for example, got details of the telephone exchange with Knox incorrect. This is not to denigrate Filomena, but it's intended to illustrate just how easily people can get confused in such dramatic circumstances.

Precisely. And when SuperSleuth releases his "findings," in mode emotive, and starts making the rounds of the "progressive" talk show soap boxes, how do you suppose the general public is going to react to the disclosures (and they will surely come) that the defendants aren't quite so immaculate as they've been portrayed? By "general public" I do not mean the career bleeders who wash down the latest revelations from Amnesty International with their morning coffee. I mean the people so mired in superstition that they still attend church, and the prudes who agonize over the exposure of their children to drugs and the risk that their daughters will swell "out-of-wedlock" statistics. Filter the "whole truth" through their value system, and what comes out the other end? Promiscuity. Dope smoking. Falsehood heaped on falsehood, a veritable "load of bs." And y'all nurse the expectation that the State Department, in response to a swell of public indignation, will take the point on this? Threaten Italy with a "diplomatic crises," perhaps? What are you smoking?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

glass from the computer

Danceme,

IIRC the computer was originally on the desk. Suppose there was some glass on top of it from the broken window. Filomena would probably have brushed the glass off, and it might have landed on some clothes. Speculative, I admit.

I will not be commenting much for a few days, to focus on other tasks, but I will try to keep up with the reading.