Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Have you never studied any mathematics beyond arithmetic?

There are entire branches of the subject where numbers scarcely enter at all.

More to the point here, you seem not to have noticed that I wrote "explicit numbers" above. There is indeed some particular number that represents (e.g.) my probability that Amanda Knox killed her roommate; but it isn't necessary to determine that number to a high degree of precision in order to have a meaningful discussion. An order-of-magnitude estimate will suffice for purposes here. (If you want to know, my estimate is about 0.001, or 0.1%; that's meant to be distinguished from 1%, 10% or 50%, not from 0.2%.)

Though it may be beyond your experience, when I write something like "low prior probability + weak evidence = low posterior probability", that is legitimate mathematics. But if it helps you understand, you may substitute "0.0001*10 = 0.001".



If your acquaintance with the subject is good enough, why don't you try pointing out where I've been mistaken in any of my arguments?




Wrong. It was published in 1994. Look it up. And 2011-1994 = 17, which is between 15 and 20.

Thats coming very close to a personal attack but never mind.

I have already dealt with your argument on this issue at greater length than was strictly necessary.

But credit where its due, on your final point you are correct.The book was published in 94' - I may have been mistakenly thinking of a row over a Jansen updated 'theory' in the mid 80's.
Your arithmetic is sound (as is you ability to use google, would that I had done the same) - No further than this can I go.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Aldrovandi

Yes Mary, Rose is very wise. She should be the author of her own blog.

Perugia Shock has a new post up. It is an educational read.

christianahannah,

I agree. I did not know that the mother of Federico Aldrovandi was sued for calling her son's killers felons. That is remarkable.

 

[platonov]

A = (Platonov made the above post)
B = (Platonov's passing acquaintance with mathematics does not extend to discrete mathematics)

A->B

I thought you had me on ignore ?

Well if not ....We will forego a discussion of your understanding of 'discrete mathematics' [ isn't google great ] as opposed to k's 'stats' which was the topic under discussion [ what kind of p value can one apply to the term 'immaculate' I wonder ? ] and draw your attention to this post for one example among very many.

Lets get the basics right - Walking before running and all that

 

[Chris C]

I noticed on another cite where they were talking about Curatolo was in court today for dealing Heroin. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Poppy1016]

Well it appears that Sig Curatolo won't be homeless much longer.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought that was handled quite adroitly by noting that anyone with enough knowledge of what an internalized false confession is to be able to 'fake' it as well as she did, would be clever enough never to try one because odds are it would put them away for a long time.

However, "a simple lie" raises something I've never been able to get a real answer on. How do you, in your mind, go from 'confessing' to being in another room cowering with ears covered while Patrick Lumumba rapes and murders Meredith, to having it really mean she was actually directing the rape and murder of Meredith with Rudy and Raffaele?

With no real evidence to support any of that, outside the fact Rudy Guede was obviously in Meredith's bedroom when or shortly after she was murdered. How do the rest of the mental gymnastics go that allow for that 'confession' to be a 'blank check' that makes her entirely culpable in the murder despite the lack of evidence she had anything to do with it?

To be fair some non-mainstream pro-guilt posters I've seen have flirted with theories where Amanda really was on the couch with her hands over her ears when Rudy murdered Meredith. However those theories tend to run aground as soon as someone asks "So why didn't Amanda just tell the police what happened? If you're on the couch with your ears covered when it happened, as opposed to in the room stabbing the victim, why not just say so?".

Then when someone says "Hang on, wasn't the story that Amanda Knox was the mastermind? The nexus linking Rudy and Raffaele? WTF is going on if the mastermind of the plot is on the couch with her hands over her ears while Raffaele and Rudy, total strangers, molest and murder Meredith in the next room? How does this story make any sense?" the whole thing comes apart.

If you apply exactly this kind of rigorous thinking to the big picture of course the entire case falls to pieces in exactly the same way. But people can be capable of thinking through a small piece of the puzzle without being capable of thinking through the big picture.

What it boils down to is that to explain the fact that Amanda and Raffaele have always robustly proclaimed their innocence and never wavered on that point most people find themselves forced to conclude either that they are indeed innocent, or that they were both in it up to their necks. Halfway stories don't seem to fit because if either her or Raffaele was only half way in then you would expect them to have rolled over by now.

Even if you think they might have lied for each other at the time, it's a bit implausible that someone would keep lying for a six-day fling three years ago.

 

[Poppy1016]

Very well said Kevin.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov

Mary H, Is this not heresy ?

For some reason 'Nuns run bald thru Vatican halls' comes to mind.

But if it worked for Joseph - I believe he also ignored the previous 'visitation' of an Italian ( or a Roman at any rate ) - why not here

You've lost me, platonov, although that's nothing new.

You surprise me Mary H

I thought this 'confusion' over aspects of catholic doctrine was well known - it is to even us infidels.

But to hear Britney Amanda described as 'immaculate' is a new departure surely.
M Archers' 'fragrant' pales by comparison.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought you had me on ignore ?

Ignore's a filtering mechanism. The posters I considered it a higher priority to respond to have mostly left, so I can open the filters up a bit and let stuff through that would not have been worth my time during busier periods.

Well if not ....We will forego a discussion of your understanding of 'discrete mathematics' [ isn't google great ]

Believe it or not it's not just Google that knows about discrete mathematics. There are books about it, university courses, multiple scholarly journals... it's a big and fascinating area, and it's all about the mathematics of non-continuous variables.

You'd probably call me a liar if I said I was aware of the existence of this field of mathematics before you made your post displaying your ignorance of it, so you can keep on believing that I saw your post and googled "OMG is there maths without numbers I need to show up Platonov oh please please" and only then did I discover it if you like.

as opposed to k's 'stats' which was the topic under discussion [ what kind of p value can one apply to the term 'immaculate' I wonder ? ] and draw your attention to this post for one example among very many.

I encourage anyone interested to follow that link - it's the verbal equivalent of a man very seriously and methodically shooting himself in his own foot.

Lets get the basics right - Walking before running and all that

Hopping, in your case.

 

[platonov]

Ignore's a filtering mechanism. The posters I considered it a higher priority to respond to have mostly left, so I can open the filters up a bit and let stuff through that would not have been worth my time during busier periods.



Believe it or not it's not just Google that knows about discrete mathematics. There are books about it, university courses, multiple scholarly journals... it's a big and fascinating area, and it's all about the mathematics of non-continuous variables.

You'd probably call me a liar if I said I was aware of the existence of this field of mathematics before you made your post displaying your ignorance of it, so you can keep on believing that I saw your post and googled "OMG is there maths without numbers I need to show up Platonov oh please please" and only then did I discover it if you like.



I encourage anyone interested to follow that link - it's the verbal equivalent of a man very seriously and methodically shooting himself in his own foot.



Hopping, in your case.

We can keep this short and sweet.

Deal with the post I linked to

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a question

To all,

There is something that I have never understood. Suppose that Amanda and Raffaele were both guilty. The police come in and tell Amanda that Raffaele is no longer covering for her. Would her natural response not be to blame him and to say he was the instigator (and she the unwilling participant)? I don't get it.

 

[Mary_H]

You surprise me Mary H

I thought this 'confusion' over aspects of catholic doctrine was well known - it is to even us infidels.

But to hear Britney Amanda described as 'immaculate' is a new departure surely.
M Archers' 'fragrant' pales by comparison.

Well, there's immaculate and there's Immaculate, plat. Are you sure you know which one you're talking about?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We can keep this short and sweet.

Deal with the post I linked to

Oh, okay. Spoiler tags for people who want to follow the link and play spot-the-error themselves.

As the article quoted in the linked post says, t(lag) for solid meals does not fit a normal distribution.

However as Platonov had just been told, the difference between a normal distribution and the distribution of t(lag) times for solid meals is just that the left hand side of the distribution has a hard limit at t=0 since retrocausality is currently only possible in theoretical physics and photographs of Curatolo dealing smack, and in practice it takes a finite time for digestion to start. The right hand side of the graph matches a normal distribution.

Platonov, oblivious to the significance of what he has just been told, plods ahead saying "The authors are stating [as shutlt indicated] that the normal distn. which applies to liquids does not apply to solids in their study. This is obvious on a straightforward reading - it doesn't even require a basic understanding of stats". The irony of course is that Platonov's understanding of stats is so basic that even immediately after being told exactly what the difference between a normal distribution and the t(lag) distribution of solid meals was, he was still hung up at the level of thinking that there was a difference and that was all that mattered.

The fact that he's still looking back on this as a coup instead of a self-inflicted bullet wound in the metaphorical foot amuses me on multiple levels.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes Mary, Rose is very wise. She should be the author of her own blog.

Perugia Shock has a new post up. It is an educational read.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/behind-knox-sollecito-trial.html

Indeed, I found this the most interesting passage:

But the number of lawsuits the cops have initiated around Amanda and Raffaele has beaten every record. Why do they fear so much about what she or others might say about the night at the police station? Why are they so attentive to the press? Why all the lawsuits? Why this attempt to silence people? Why this repression?

I'd assumed that the number of extraneous charges and suits surrounding the Amanda Knox trial was unusual, and it doesn't surprise me it is unprecedented even in Italy. To recap I believe charges have been filed on Amanda's mother and step-father, Raffaele's father, mother and sister, two of the defense lawyers, a journalist at Oggi and their editor and two bloggers overseas.

You'd think it's about time someone in the press noticed that.

 

[tsig]

Please don't misunderstand, you are absolutely at liberty to contribute as little as you wish to the thread. Nobody is saying that you have to lift a finger, and there is nothing in the Membership Agreement that says you can't spend an entire six hundred page thread sniping at minor errors, making unsupported assertions which you do not defend, and saying that maybe other people might do all your work for you.

By the same token, I am at liberty to repeat what I said earlier:

Maybe you can read what has already been posted, and then present an equally informed and relevant response, possibly citing novel sources, bringing us new insights into the case or summarising the important points for the benefit of newcomers? If you have read it all and still do not understand it then maybe you can quote the posts that contain the bits you do not understand and ask for clarification on the specific points you are having trouble with?

deleted

 

[Mary_H]

I noticed on another cite where they were talking about Curatolo was in court today for dealing Heroin. Can anyone confirm this?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/235486.asp

 

[Malkmus]

False Confession Checklist

I've followed it since the beginning. Maybe you can answer the question because it seems to me that any lie could be characterized as an internalized false accusation.

Coerced and false confessions, often confirmed by DNA tests or other conclusive evidence, typically contain common elements, Leo said.

One is unusual length. Interrogations lasting more than four to six hours, especially if food, water, rest and bathroom breaks are denied, can overpower an innocent suspect's will, he said. "Tag-teaming" on an individual suspect by multiple interrogators compounds this effect.

Unusual Length: Check
Roughly three hours for the first statement written/narrated by police (10:45 to 1:45). And another 4 hours of interrogation until the second statement.

Food, water, rest and bathroom breaks are denied: Check

"Tag Teaming": Check
AK: "sometimes there was just this one woman, then
there would be five, then there would be ten, then --"

Another is the suspect "being frightened into submission" by detectives' threats, like graphic descriptions of prison life, or by false hope given with a promise of leniency or "help" if he cooperates.

"Threats": Check
AK: "they said "No, you're telling a lie. You'd better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you're going to prison for 30 years because you're a liar."


"False Hope or "Help": Check
AK: "it was only after I made declarations that they started saying "No, no, don't worry, we'll protect you," and that's how it happened."

Lying about having incriminating evidence or using a Computer Voice Stress Analyzer and claiming it to be infallible are examples of "forceful evidence ploys," Leo said, which can elicit an involuntary and false confession.

"Lying About Having Incriminating Evidence: Check
AK: "I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened."

This sort of flaw can be a prime indicator of a false confession, evidence that the police, not the suspect, provided the story line.

Police Provided Storyline: Check.

http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Leo_Richard.shtml

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Truejustice.org is similar to a terrorist cell in that they are a closed cult that enable each other's common beliefs.

They start with an elicitation of sympathy and then quickly move to justified blame. We've seen it before...

We shouldn't enable truejustice.org. We don't.

Steve More with his experience in fighting against terrorism should be the right man to have a closer look at this people.

 

[Kaosium]

To be fair some non-mainstream pro-guilt posters I've seen have flirted with theories where Amanda really was on the couch with her hands over her ears when Rudy murdered Meredith. However those theories tend to run aground as soon as someone asks "So why didn't Amanda just tell the police what happened? If you're on the couch with your ears covered when it happened, as opposed to in the room stabbing the victim, why not just say so?".

Then when someone says "Hang on, wasn't the story that Amanda Knox was the mastermind? The nexus linking Rudy and Raffaele? WTF is going on if the mastermind of the plot is on the couch with her hands over her ears while Raffaele and Rudy, total strangers, molest and murder Meredith in the next room? How does this story make any sense?" the whole thing comes apart.

If you apply exactly this kind of rigorous thinking to the big picture of course the entire case falls to pieces in exactly the same way. But people can be capable of thinking through a small piece of the puzzle without being capable of thinking through the big picture.

What it boils down to is that to explain the fact that Amanda and Raffaele have always robustly proclaimed their innocence and never wavered on that point most people find themselves forced to conclude either that they are indeed innocent, or that they were both in it up to their necks. Halfway stories don't seem to fit because if either her or Raffaele was only half way in then you would expect them to have rolled over by now.

Even if you think they might have lied for each other at the time, it's a bit implausible that someone would keep lying for a six-day fling three years ago.

Oh, I've come to agree, ironically I was in the process of trying to put together one of these 'halfway' guilt theories when I read all the interrogation stuff at once and it dawned on me: 'Geez, I know what happened here.'

As a result though, I never got to the part where I had to manufacture the mental framework that gets one from that 'confession' to putting her in that room against all evidence, I'd already decided to punt that away, it being a contention unsupportable by 'evidence' except the kind that points in the wrong direction for the guilt argument. If the official story can be true, then anything can be true, and there might be better odds of aliens being involved than what they came up with in the end.

That's what I was wondering about. What makes anyone think the police and prosecutor were right about how Meredith died, when they couldn't muster any real evidence in support of their theory? They just twisted the 'results' of a failed interrogation in a bizarre direction and then morphed it into a free pass on all physical evidence?

No-one chokes on this?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

New meta-thread and attempts at explaining the social dynamics of the Knox controversy on the JREF forums here. Please keep meta-discussion of the thread dynamics over there, and all factual arguments pertaining to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox over here.