Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Is this the comment you mentioned today? I am not sure how I overlooked it, but I agree that Rinaldi's charge was too narrow. MOO.

Yes, it is very limited charge, in my opinion. It is almost like telling the expert not to look for any other comparisons. It is ensuring that you get no surprises from the expert's report.

 

[lane99]

Yes. I wrote about it in a thread in the member's only section in relation to the present case...

"Member's Only Section"? There's such somewhere here at JREF, you mean? Or?

Anyone can clarify?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

membership has its privileges

"Member's Only Section"? There's such somewhere here at JREF, you mean? Or?

Anyone can clarify?

Thanks in advance.

lane99,

Anyone can read the present thread, but you have to be a member to read in the forum community or abandon all hope sections, for example. You can look here. Member's only is a heading, and forum community and AAH are subsections.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

chocolate

I agree. From my standpoint I looked hard for a cite to show that Meredith and Amanda attended the chocolate festival together, finally found it and was ignored by the posters asking for it, found a cite showing that Rinaldi only used the footprints from the three suspects as a reference and was also ignored, and even more recently a third cite on Raffaele's inheritance (I also found a fourth, btw).

It is frustrating.

It would be nice of the prosecution to release Amanda's hard drive to Toshiba so that we might see the photos of Amanda and Meredith at the chocolate festival. Of course, some would say, "Well, of course they are smiling in the photo, but they really did not get along."

 

[Kaosium]

I agree. From my standpoint I looked hard for a cite to show that Meredith and Amanda attended the chocolate festival together, finally found it and was ignored by the posters asking for it, found a cite showing that Rinaldi only used the footprints from the three suspects as a reference and was also ignored, and even more recently a third cite on Raffaele's inheritance (I also found a fourth, btw).

It is frustrating.

Don't think that just because someone asked for it and wasn't impressed that digging it up went entirely unnoticed. It has still been unearthed and is available in this thread and those who read or re-read it sometimes notice this sort of thing. I know there came a point where it occurred to me whilst lurking that one faction in this debate wasn't much interested in sourcing anything, nor for that matter could they for many of the contentions being made.

 

[Kaosium]

I've made three nominations but stopped after I saw what others were nominating. It seemed like many nominations were sarcastic.

See my signature:
Ordinary people never thank another for knowledge.
Smart people show their appreciation with dollars.

Conversely, some expect free knowledge and criticize anything wrong - especially from those that they disagree with.

I think they're looking for 'pithy' posts, and whatever that post (of mine) was, pith it was not. Though I was impressed with Rose's argument in that regard, that wouldn't have occurred to me. I just wrote it off the top of my head in response to a flurry of 'conspiracy' objections over the possibility of corruption. I was actually replying to Alt's post that included about 25 names, I just chose that one to respond to as it had less 'gray' in it to quote.

 

[quadraginta]

I think they're looking for 'pithy' posts, and whatever that post (of mine) was, pith it was not. Though I was impressed with Rose's argument in that regard, that wouldn't have occurred to me. I just wrote it off the top of my head in response to a flurry of 'conspiracy' objections over the possibility of corruption. I was actually replying to Alt's post that included about 25 names, I just chose that one to respond to as it had less 'gray' in it to quote.

Each month's nominations are culled by whichever hapless Forum member has unwisely volunteered to tackle the job and their selections are offered up for vote in two separate polls each month. Everyone who wants to can vote.

One is for the actual Language Award itself, which is (at least theoretically) intended to reflect the post with the best use of language. The people voting use their own criteria to determine that, of course, and I have no doubt that agreement with the point being made by the post is a large factor in many decisions. But it is not a prerequisite, and technically I suppose shouldn't even be a consideration. (ETA: Ten nominations are singled out, and the voters may choose one of them.)

The selections deemed the pithiest (most pithy?) are presented in an entirely different poll at the same time, and are voted on separately by anyone who chooses to do so. (ETA: Twenty nominations are usually selected and the voters may vote for as many as they like from that twenty.)

The winner of each is awarded an extra line in their title bar in recognition of their achievement until the next month and the next set of polls.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Kaosium

I know there came a point where it occurred to me whilst lurking that one faction in this debate wasn't much interested in sourcing anything, nor for that matter could they for many of the contentions being made.

This I believe is a public forum which unlike say Injustice in Perugia public forum or TJMK has not aligned itself on either side of this case, therefore, I do not understand how as you put it one faction appear to believe they can by based on numbers set the agenda of a particular thread.

 

[Nightowl2548]

Nightowl, even if she was this 'type' it wouldn't mean she was capable of murder! I've know a lot of 'alternative' girls, piercings, tattoos, into S&M and other alternative sexual practices- they do not have anything to do with non-consensual sex / violence. I find the implication that if Amanda was one of these girls then we would be correct in thinking she's capable of murder, very offensive, ignorant and narrow-minded. It's this whole argument that is wrong- sex , piercings, clothing, reading material, etc etc has no correlation with this level of violence. Violence does, and AK and RS have never displayed any violence or aggression.

I never said that was evidence for murder, rather her lack of showing signs of being in that subculture vastly decreased the odds she would be open to the bondage S&M thing, bisexual orgies, etc. I also never said those people commit the kinds of fantastic crimes the prosecutor imagined. This case reminds me of the fantasies of the "Devil Worship" obsessed West Memphis police who railroaded a local Goth high school boy and two friends for a child murder without any evidence other than the edgy way he looked freaked out the provincial old squares. The only issue is Amanda doesn't even look scary. She looks fairly wholesome, In my experience the slutty "manipulative" girls who Magnini imagined Amanda to be have a different "look." Very fancy hairdos, blond highlights, fake boobs, fancy clothes (Amanda's wardrobe looked fairly dumpy) I worked with these kinds of girls who always had one guy after another wrapped around their finger, buying them things. Amanda just doesn't strike me as the "Femme Fatale" the prosecutor and square public seem to imagine her as.

 

[Nightowl2548]

It would be nice of the prosecution to release Amanda's hard drive to Toshiba so that we might see the photos of Amanda and Meredith at the chocolate festival. Of course, some would say, "Well, of course they are smiling in the photo, but they really did not get along."

The issue of the "broken" hard drives is more circumstantial evidence for a frame up. How can three hard drives yield no evidence? Time in Time out we hear about the FBI busting Child Pornographers, Terrorists, etc by recovering data from their hard drives even after the perpetrators had thought they erased the incriminating evidence. One guy even physically cut up the disk and the forensic team manages to get file data off the pieces to convict him of taking a contract murder out on his wife. The Department of Defense incinerates all hard drives containing classified information and buries the ashes on guarded Army bases they are so worried about data persistence. How could all three hard drives be "destroyed?"

I see similar circumstantial evidence of the frame up from the so called "DNA" on the non-murder weapon. Since the knife that was chosen to play that part doesn't match the wounds or the outline on the bed, how do we explain Meredeth's DNA on it? Either there is so much contamination anything will test positive, or the DNA was planted. Same with the bra clasp, funny how right after the lone piece of evidence linking Rafaelle to the scene--the footprint--was discredited and Rafaelle should have been released, they went out and pulled this piece of evidence like a rabbit out of a hat. Patrick is really, really, lucky that Swiss professor stood up for him with an airtight alibi, otherwise Guede would have been added to all three of them rather than substituted for Lumumba in their ludicrous "theories."

 

[Justinian2]

deleted

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium



This I believe is a public forum which unlike say Injustice in Perugia public forum or TJMK has not aligned itself on either side of this case, therefore, I do not understand how as you put it one faction appear to believe they can by based on numbers set the agenda of a particular thread.

Hmmm...I'm not sure what you're getting at here but it doesn't appear to bear much relation to what I meant. I was just noting that when reading through this thread I (eventually) noticed a massive 'citation deficit' on behalf of the ones who believed in guilt. I also noticed that there were many posts like Rose's that may have seemed to have gone unnoticed by participants at the time, but that whilst lurking I did in fact note that said claim had been supported and started wondering why one faction seldom bothered to source a contention outside 'it's been established in this thread' or what amounted to 'PMF theory.'

If you mean that asking for evidence constitutes an attempt to 'set the agenda' that's just the JREF culture. This is a board that expects (and supposedly welcomes) those making unusual claims, thus the onus is upon them to provide sources for the discussion of them. Personally I cut my teeth in an environment where someone showing up to say 'I'm skeptical of your claim' and/or 'evidence?' and contributing nothing else would be ignored--at best. If someone disputed something they brought their own evidence into the argument to support their disagreement. Considering JREF's 'mission' that wouldn't really work here.

 

[RoseMontague]

It would be nice of the prosecution to release Amanda's hard drive to Toshiba so that we might see the photos of Amanda and Meredith at the chocolate festival. Of course, some would say, "Well, of course they are smiling in the photo, but they really did not get along."

There are still many pictures and videos of the 2007 chocolate festival on the web. Here is one. See if you can spot Meredith and Amanda. (just kidding, but really, who knows what's out there).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c788kInpPj0&nofeather=True

 

[Kaosium]

I see similar circumstantial evidence of the frame up from the so called "DNA" on the non-murder weapon. Since the knife that was chosen to play that part doesn't match the wounds or the outline on the bed, how do we explain Meredeth's DNA on it? Either there is so much contamination anything will test positive, or the DNA was planted.

There's another way of looking at it. Consider that you have an uncertified lab that doesn't really understand the concept of 'contamination' to the point they'd make the laughable claim they've never had a single instance of it in their entire history. Therefore they're not even looking for it, and the odds of it occurring they probably think negligible thus it doesn't even enter their mental universe that it would happen.

With all the items of Raffaele's they were testing in those sloppy conditions they were bound to get an item (or more) contaminated. Most of the time that it happens it's probably meaningless. It just so happened this time that it was a knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle, thus that to them meant it obviously was involved in the murder somehow whether it matched the wounds or not. Therefore they come up with a 'two knife theory' to explain the lack of consistency with the wounds and the outline. To them if it was 'possible' to have created the one (or two) wounds, then it must have.

The fact that everything else points to the fact it logically couldn't have been involved in the murder suggests a few things to me. One that Monica Napoleoni as Head of Homicide is decidedly corrupt or so incompetent she didn't realize that knife couldn't have been involved in the murder.

However it also suggests they didn't just plant it as why would they try to frame anyone with 'evidence' so absurd? I had a helluva time sloughing through the sordid stories of the 'murder knife' and the bra clasp wondering 'why didn't they just frame them? Producing those items in court made them look stupider and more corrupt to me than an obvious plant, as that could be explained easily by an overenthusiastic rookie or something.

Another possibility has recently occurred to me as a result of reviewing the taped conversation where Amanda says 'I was there.' In that conversation someone says something to the effect of it's just a mindgame, in order to get her to 'confess.' I wonder if the real truth here is Monica Napoleoni and everyone else in a position to know realizes perfectly well that knife was never involved in the murder, but when the contaminated (or secondary transfer--perhaps Amanda wiped it off on her sleeve putting it away) knife was revealed they decided to use it to prey on her psyche, and it just turned out eventually that was the 'best' evidence they could find on her so they used it anyway, there being no one to tell them they couldn't and they believed her guilty for behavioral reasons regardless.

Same with the bra clasp, funny how right after the lone piece of evidence linking Rafaelle to the scene--the footprint--was discredited and Rafaelle should have been released, they went out and pulled this piece of evidence like a rabbit out of a hat. Patrick is really, really, lucky that Swiss professor stood up for him with an airtight alibi, otherwise Guede would have been added to all three of them rather than substituted for Lumumba in their ludicrous "theories."

The bra clasp....heh....I still think if they ever take that trophy pic of Amanda off that wall in Rome they should replace it with a looped video of that 'collection' tape.



Incidentally, did you notice the Swiss professor didn't actually give him an alibi for the (eventual) time of death?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well sometimes from my own point if view I have reached the same conclusion; for example on Sunday I posted an extract from John Kercher's article which created a virutal storm of responses and I conclude that it wasn't so such goalpost shifting as a completely different game not requiring goalpost.

As ever, people one only see things from their point of view.

This is a curious statement to make.

"Shifting the goalposts" is a way of referring to the sleazy argumentative manoeuvre of changing your stated conclusions, or stated requests for information, when the other side falsifies your conclusion or fulfils your request for information.

The "No True Scotsman" manoeuvre, for example, is a case of shifting the goalposts.

I'm not sure how any possible response to a text dump such as yours could be legitimately described as "shifting the goalposts" because there were no goalposts to begin with. You just dumped a box of text, in which John Kercher expressed his emotional view about the court process and the release of the topical movie. What goal did this supposedly kick, and who shifted the goalposts to deny you that goal?

People did indeed subsequently read the full article you linked to, and pointed out the factual errors in John Kercher's article and the eerie similarity between the talking points he articulated and the ignorant and/or mendacious talking points we have come to expect from Harry Rag, Michael and similar pro-guilt spokespersons. However I don't see how this can possibly be seen as shifting the goalposts either, since no goalposts were established. Changing the subject isn't necessarily shifting the goalposts, especially if there were never any goalposts to shift.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Alberto Stasi case

CoulsdonUK,

You asked about demonization. Alberto Stasi was arrested for the murder of his girlfriend in 2007. Some accounts said that her blood was found on the pedal of his bicycle. Mixed DNA was also found on a bottle of soap. His alibi of being on his computer did not seem to pan out. However, he opted for a fast track trial, and despite this, the judge asked for an independent review of the forensics. He was acquitted, and it was determined that his girlfriend’s DNA was on the pedal, but the source of the DNA was not determined. The mixed DNA was judged of no significance. Further computer forensics back Stasi up, despite the elastic TOD from the prosecution.

I asked Frank Sfarzo in a comment at Perugia-Shock whether Mr. Stasi had been demonized or not. He said, “Alberto Stasi? super vilified. A cold murderer, a sex addict and a perverted. 
Exactly like Paolo Onofri, Filippo Pappalardi, Raniero Busco, Sabrina Misseri, Amanda and Raffaele and all the others...
So it's not really anti-americanism the problem.” Mr, Stasi himself said, “"I'm disgusted by things that I hear about me. I stopped reading newspapers and watching the news.” So I would say that demonization of a suspect is not limited to the U.S. alone or to Italy alone. I have no strong opinion about his factual guilt or innocence, but the case seems really weak.

Here are some citations:
http://translate.google.com/transla...v=/search?q=alberto+stasi&hl=en&prmd=ivnsfdlo
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html
http://www.newnotizie.it/2010/04/09/alberto-stasi-linnocente-di-ghiaccio-2/
http://www.xomba.com/garlasco_alberto_stasi_acquitted
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_...no_d72fdbd8-eaec-11de-9f53-00144f02aabc.shtml

 

[Kaosium]

Any comments on these posts about Mark Waterbury's book or the reason that far too many believe that Amanda is guilty?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6986294#post6986294
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6986045#post6986045

I need to get myself a couple of books, I believe that both Dr. Waterbury's and Bruce Fisher's are now available at Amazon.com?

As for your second question, I'm still working on that, it puzzles me too. I've a number of evolving theories. Another factor under consideration regards something intriguing Komponisto posted once, although he was claiming it was causing him to lose his trust in humanity, that it might have something to do with the different ways people process information and their ability to see other possibilities.

I'd wondered things along those lines as well, as I noted in a post to Platonov once, it didn't matter if I got an esoteric detail (his column on the left) incorrect, as that wouldn't change anything in his column on the right, which was outcomes. That required something of the magnitude it could (amongst other things) overcome a complete lack of (real) evidence at the scene, the whole timeline which paints a picture of innocence and police misjudgments, and their backgrounds which suggest them conspiring spontaneously with someone they'd barely met to kill someone to no purpose would be basically unprecedented.

I wonder if on some level there's just a willingness to see the forest whereas some are still asking the trees if Amanda said Meredith always locked her door?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maybe you should take your own advice then and not bother engaging such posters, it’s you’re choice either way.

Well, maybe. Or you could change your approach.

What a good rationalist does is try to falsify their own beliefs. They poke at the things they currently believe in and say "What observations would be inconsistent with this belief? Where should I look to find such observations?".

This is quite opposed to the instinctive, confirmation-bias driven way in which untrained minds are inclined to act. Untrained minds tend to seek out and remember observations which reinforce their beliefs, and do not seek out or actively try to ignore or discredit observations which would diminish the strength of their beliefs if they were to acknowledge them.

(I am not a mind reader. You will know yourself whether you get the urge to avert your eyes, stop reading or stop thinking when you encounter pro-innocence arguments that you strongly disagree with yet can articulate no sensible answer to. That's what it feels like to be wrong and know it. We've all been there at one time or another in our lives).

In the context of a rationalist forum like this one, when someone asks "Have innocent defendants been demonised in the Italian media in any other cases?" I prefer to assume that they are genuinely unaware of the answer to their question, and that they genuinely intend to modify their beliefs one way or the other depending on what the facts turn out to be.

Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of asking is. One possibility is that it's simply a partisan gamble. From a purely partisan perspective, if the other side can't answer the question you've wasted their time making them look for an answer and you've scored a point. If the other side can answer the question, no harm done, you've still wasted their time and you can just pretend it never happened and repost the same nonsense in ten pages or so when the heat has died down. Maybe that's why people do it? I'd need to be a mind reader to know for certain.

 

[Justinian2]

From the monster of Perugia:

[...] Medieval witch-hunts didn't just happen - they were fed by an atmosphere of superstition and fear and promoted by those who benefited from them. After getting off to a slow start, they soared after the publication of an instruction manual, The Hammer of Witches, one of the first printed books. "All wickedness, " Hammer informs us, "is but little to the wickedness of a woman.... Women are by nature instruments of Satan."

You can also refer to The Hammer of Witches in the great Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

Of course we are talking about the current Amanda Knox witch trial.

Close to a million witches were persecuted with witch trials/inquisitions. That Amanda's trial is a witch trial is obvious to neo man.

Some (non neo men) found fault with Amanda for having blue eyes as if it was the mark of a witch; one that holds immense power over men.

 

[snook1]

Not that it bothers me that much, but does anyone know what happend with PMF? It's not working for me since yesterday.