Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[PhantomWolf]

BZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (Law).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (Law).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (Law), then the argument will be fallacious.

Unless you are prepared to claim that a Court of Law is not a legitmate authority on the Law, then as you can see, your claim doesn't hold water.

Thank you for playing, please drive through.

So every person declared Guilty in a Court of Law is guilty and every person declared Not-Guilty in a court of law isn't guilty? There are no miscarriages of justice and the courts get it right every single time?

 

[PhantomWolf]

BZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (Law).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (Law).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (Law), then the argument will be fallacious.

Unless you are prepared to claim that a Court of Law is not a legitmate authority on the Law, then as you can see, your claim doesn't hold water.

Thank you for playing, please drive through.

I'll add to this, do you believe that Judges and Lay-Judges are appropriate authories on science, forensics, whether people are being truthful, and the interpreting of evidence? If so, what qualifications do they have to do this?

I'll agree that they should be a authority on the LAW, but a legal case doesn't rest on the law, it rests on the evidence, and I don't see any evidence that a Judge or Jury should ever be considered an authority what the evidence of the case means because that isn't isn't a qualification they actually have. They make their decision on the facts based on which lawyer tells the best story, and then apply the law to that.

So no, you are wrong.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (The Evidence).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (The Evidence).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (The Evidence), then the argument will be fallacious, which is is unless you can show that the Judge really is an expert in understanding the evidence provided.

 

[RandyN]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

BTW...

"1) Was CMAN found guilty of murder or was she not? "

You posted the above twice...what exactly does CMAN mean?

AK parents defence is that

1. There was no intent.
2. The charge against them was brought to silence them.
3. Show all the accessory charges brought against others by abusive prosecutor and convicted criminal Mignini related to this case and that are only an attempt to silence those who disagree with him.
4. Call witnesses who prove that the police have lied in other areas of this case.
5. Call PL and question his interview with the Daily Mail where he states that he was beaten, called a dirty black, and held w/o food or water. And if the police or prosecutor has since spoken w/ him about this interview...which BTW Daily mail stands behind.
6. Ask to see a copy of the tape of the interrogation.

 

[Kaosium]

BZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (Law).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (Law).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (Law), then the argument will be fallacious.

Unless you are prepared to claim that a Court of Law is not a legitmate authority on the Law, then as you can see, your claim doesn't hold water.

Thank you for playing, please drive through.

That's what they taught me in college too, Scrut, but there's actually more to it, which makes sense if you think on it. Does every thread here end just because someone posts a link to a Phd or otherwise 'authoritative' source? Evidence still counts for something, otherwise we'd still be operating under the assumptions of Aristotelian Physics.

Your 'authority' in this matter amounts to a justice system in which some 40% of all 'convictions' in the trial of the first instance become acquittals or see the sentences reduced, oftentimes significantly. It's also the outlier amongst Western European courts subject to the ECHR in regards to failure to provide a fair trial--by a laughable amount. In the legal arena you'd struggle to find an 'authority' as weak as an Italian trial of first instance amongst first world nations.

Just something to consider: if all the provable lies the police told, that they never presented legitimate evidence of murder, or that the clown engineering this railroad is a grade A kook isn't convincing enough to make you pause, doesn't the thought that the parents being charged along with fifteen other people for daring to criticize the investigation make you wonder at least a little bit?

Take a look at what they're being charged for too, does that sound like clean pool to you?

 

[PhantomWolf]

i think the final nail in knoxs hopes of getting away with it came from her performances in court. Have you watched any of that? Its terrible. Probably the most unconvincing testimony ive seen. On trial for murder with 8+ months to think about her side of the story and she comes out with a performance like that?

seriously nobody watching that can tell me they think thats an innocent person. Its just not possible.

I'll be shocked if they get off.

Do you actually have any evidence other than personal incredulity?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no longer shocked by any of it

Kaosium,

Good points. And I would add that the shutting down of Frank Sfarzo's blog Perugia-Shock is right up there with the most troubling of them. Who will report on the parents' trial if Frank cannot?

 

[Rhea]

i think the final nail in knoxs hopes of getting away with it came from her performances in court. Have you watched any of that? Its terrible. Probably the most unconvincing testimony ive seen. On trial for murder with 8+ months to think about her side of the story and she comes out with a performance like that?

seriously nobody watching that can tell me they think thats an innocent person. Its just not possible.

I've watched her testimony and she comes across completely innocent to me, she would be an extremely good actress if she were guilty.

The reception at the time was that she came across convincing, Mignini said she was a good actress …

 

[Kestrel]

Kaosium,

Good points. And I would add that the shutting down of Frank Sfarzo's blog Perugia-Shock is right up there with the most troubling of them. Who will report on the parents' trial if Frank cannot?

On a related note, I just noticed that the London Times interview of Knox's parents that generated this lawsuit is no longer available online.

 

[RoseMontague]

I've watched her testimony and she comes across completely innocent to me, she would be an extremely good actress if she were guilty.

The reception at the time was that she came across convincing, Mignini said she was a good actress …

I believe she did a terrific job and was very convincing. Her testimony also gave us quite a bit of information on her questioning leading to the 1:45AM and 5:45AM statements, information that I consider important to her innocence.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Indeed. I could also refer you to page 50 of the translated Massei report to corroborate your understanding:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci [police photographer] mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall... underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci)."

So here we have the police photographer "paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane" obviously knowing this particular area was extremely important (since she was paying such particular attention to it), with at least 1 professional police camera on her person yet she snaps how many photos of this area? Oh, that's right - ZERO.

This fact is also telling you something.

Yes, it does. It tells me (and every other intelligent observer) a few things:

1) This "particular area" was not, at that time, considered important from an evidentiary standpoint.

2) Had there been any evidence at this "particular area" it quickly became trampled upon, crushed into the ground, mixed with ashes and cigarette butts, and possibly transferred to other "particular areas."

3) ILE was, at best, remiss and more likely downright negligent and incompetent.

No, why would I? Or, more pointedly, how would I?

I was just leaving open the possibility that photographs of the "particular area" existed and that I simply had not seen them.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Yes, I really would.

 

[LondonJohn]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

"1) Was CMAN found guilty of murder or was she not? "

You posted the above twice...what exactly does CMAN mean?

I was stumped by this one for a while, but I think it's an abbreviation for........

Convicted Murderer Amanda Nox (sic)

Say no more

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

Good points. And I would add that the shutting down of Frank Sfarzo's blog Perugia-Shock is right up there with the most troubling of them. Who will report on the parents' trial if Frank cannot?

Let us hope LJ's prediction is correct and no one will be. I will add to that my hope that there's plenty of trials in the future for Frank to report on, just not theirs--or his...

I saw another article where they're still assuming Frank actually said something defamatory about Mignini, which certainly isn't the case with what they charged him with, unless warning that relying on a smack dealer who sampled his own wares--and whose a loony-tune besides--is a bad idea actually amounts to 'defaming' someone. Isn't it ironic that this charge didn't fall until Frank was proven right when Curatolo was laughed out of the appeals court?

I think Mignini knows 'the hour is getting late,' it is the epitome of desperation to continue a suit on a blogger for a trumped-up 'defamation' charge after the CPJ had already written a letter to Italy's president concerning the tactics of Mignini in regards to this trial and and the last time he kooked out.

 

[theRealBob]

So here we have the police photographer "paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane" obviously knowing this particular area was extremely important (since she was paying such particular attention to it), with at least 1 professional police camera on her person yet she snaps how many photos of this area? Oh, that's right - ZERO.

Nice pic of the top sill of the first floor window on the Injustice in Perugia site though. Must have been hard work to think about snapping that.

Yes, it does. It tells me (and every other intelligent observer) a few things:

1) This "particular area" was not, at that time, considered important from an evidentiary standpoint.

2) Had there been any evidence at this "particular area" it quickly became trampled upon, crushed into the ground, mixed with ashes and cigarette butts, and possibly transferred to other "particular areas."

3) ILE was, at best, remiss and more likely downright negligent and incompetent.

Hear hear.
I'd go for lying over incompetent though.

 

[Supernaut]

One could easily say there is a contingency of middle aged unattractive women who seem to be obsessed with this case on the basis of their jealousy of Amanda Knox's looks as well. Not a friendly conversation and not worth much time exploring though---just like the middle aged white knight claims.

Yeh!

Hi ALT+F4, you beautiful thing, you!

 

[Supernaut]

Exactly. Both Amanda and Raffaele have looked pretty sharp so far. I am a little bit more on the fence for Raffaele, however. His last haircut was a mistake, in my opinion. The big question is if he has since decided to let his hair grow back out. We will have to wait for the next hearing to find out.

he's been in PRISON for the last 3 1/2 years. A MALE prison. Have you never heard what these places are like?

Now, apologies for gratifying guilter fantasies;

Men don't have a vagina, but they have two other orifices which, one gathers, are much in demand as a substitute in these institutions.

Cropping or shaving one's hair is, I would say, a damned good image/strategy to adopt (assuming one is not manisfestly "mad, bad and dangerous to know", which somehow I doubt Raff is).

The last thing a young academic like Raff needs is to be seen as a 'pretty boy'. No?

He's just trying to survive.

Sheesh, RM - most of the time you appear to be pretty worldly ........

 

[theRealBob]

I believe she did a terrific job and was very convincing. Her testimony also gave us quite a bit of information on her questioning leading to the 1:45AM and 5:45AM statements, information that I consider important to her innocence.

Here's a bit of that

[Ghirga]
From what Frost, Meredith's friend, said, and others, we heard that you,
or Sollecito, claimed to have seen the body in the closet, covered with a
sheet, and nothing could be seen but a foot. Now if you hadn't seen the room,
and Raffaele hadn't seen it either, how could you make this observation?
How could you -- I'm asking another question -- and how could this closet
contain Meredith's body? You know the closet, right? I have a black and
white photo of it here. Here. This closet.

The cops told us at the start of the trial that it was a big deal that she knew this crime-scene fact .
Looking back on this you'd have to say to yourself that Amanda's psychic episode isn't that revealing as a confirmation of guilt.

Because there never was a body in the closet.

I just noticed that episode when I searched the trial testimony. What I was really looking for was the speech, which I have on my computer, where she said in front of the court

'Oh that's F***ed'
'That's really f***ed'

and then there was the shambles afterwards as the expression had to be explained to the Italians.

I also think you can see her as a nervous girl caught in a nerve-wracking public spotlight.

 

[pilot padron]

With reluctance, to Mary my friend

I have already ceded to you the point that somebody called Amanda some kind of liar. It's a compromise, in an effort to move the conversation along.

Now the point under discussion should be the rest of your claim, i.e., that somebody called Amanda a liar because she was caught in documented unequivocal lies.

Mary, my friend, this reply is prompted mostly by an acknowledgement of your past skills as a fair, very knowledgeable courteous poster, and not by acceptance of your continuing persistent pleas for me to ease up on the preamble to my post.

1) 'When and how Amanda lied' is not only an obviously markedly moved goalpost that I politely previously asked to be spared....it is an entirely different playing field.

Out of respect for your devotion to your cause, do you really want me to go there ?

Surely, since the 'pathological' debate brought into play all the other certainly distasteful to you terms other than pathological that people definitely used to describe Amanda's penchant for being less than truthful.

Do you really want to endure yet another a thru z list of things you probably would rather not see in print again about when Amanda's statements were for example only as she admitted 'the best truths that she can remember' ?
By elementary introspection of that statement alone, she self categorizes what she is saying as something less than the full truth.

2) Again, you do not spare me , the sophistic 'parsing' nitpicking I requested when you now say that you said Amanda was not a *classic* pathological liar.
You now add 'classic' and seek to veer us off into the realm of psychology.
I *per chance* presume, but find necessary to remind you exactly of what you said and not permit the digression out of courtesy to our readers.

As a reminder, and again, sorry to have to go there, but this is exactly verbatim what you said that originally stimulated my reply.
(The reply which admittedly now is a deceased and since overly beaten equine that I promise to 'spare' henceforth)

And I'm with the others who have asked for evidence. I am not aware of one person who has come into contact with Amanda who has called her a pathological liar.

Note absence of any 'classic' modifier in your original.

Finally, even her own lawyer alluded to her 'problems with truth'

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a simple question

pilot padron,

Would you define the term "pathological liar?"

 

[RoseMontague]

Sheesh, RM - most of the time you appear to be pretty worldly ........

I have been up to Mount Pilot a few times but not yet Italy. I have no idea what I would wear. Perhaps when Amanda is free she can come out with an appropriate clothing line.

 

[pilot padron]

Diametrically Differing Impressions

I've watched her testimony and she comes across completely innocent to me, she would be an extremely good actress if she were guilty.

The reception at the time was that she came across convincing, Mignini said she was a good actress …

..........and she *was* found guilty.

With all due respect....how 'convincing' can a defendant's testimony be if it results in a *unanimous* verdict of guilt ?.

Do you wish us conclude that the defendant's testimony 'convinced' the jury of her guilt?

I could readily buy that.

In contrast to your evaluation, what I saw was frequent obvious evasiveness, deliberate off topic rambling, shocking self defeating arrogance (may I continue), repeated transparent jack in the box jump up and down silly objection attempts by dalla Vedova to 'save Amanda from herself', repeated necessity for the Judge to intervene and require her to address the issue, and even for the Judge to intervene and force her to finally admit "yes, yes" about the suddenly impossible to recall phone call with Edda , etccccccc
Convincing yes, but not of innocence.

....... Her testimony also gave us quite a bit of information on her questioning leading to the 1:45AM and 5:45AM statements, information that I consider important to her innocence.

Indeed, Rose....Are you referring to the "enough information" from the questioning that resulted in additional slander charges against Amanda ???

Forgive me if I demur and decide that this 'additional information' was important *to her guilt*