Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[tsig]

Since you've chosen to take up the baton on this, I'll take the time to tell you as well that you're wrong. Here's why:

The word "trope" was used incorrectly in the sentence



This is an incorrect usage of "trope". The correct word here would be "mantra" (if one wanted to be derogatory, which the writer clearly did), or "argument" (if one wanted to be civil).

And the reason why "trope" is inappropriate and wrong in that sentence is actually directly alluded to in the definition you so kindly provided. The clue is in the words "theme" and "device", and the example given. An example of the correct usage of "trope" would be something like this:



Judging by your post, you can't see the difference. But maybe this post of mine has helped to enlighten you.

English is a fine language: you should learn it some time (I've corrected your grammar - you're welcome).

I'm sure that your mistaken definitions of words will set Amanda free directly.

 

[tsig]

Could someone please help me to understand where/how this unsolicited argument completely about 'farming/usage of words' relates in any way to the discussion of Amanda Knox ?

But yes, I know what you're driving at. I'm just off to parse myself a warm bath.

verb \ˈpärs, chiefly British ˈpärz\
parsedpars·ing
Definition of PARSE
transitive verb
1
a : to resolve (as a sentence) into component parts of speech and describe them grammatically b : to describe grammatically by stating the part of speech and explaining the inflection and syntactical relationships
2
: to examine in a minute way : analyze critically <having trouble parsing … explanations for dwindling market shar

So you're going to examine the bath?

 

[Kaosium]

Where are you getting this "definites" thing from. I posted this quote from the skeptic dictionary article above and I'll post it again:

I was referring to the description of the Unabomber investigation, and the comparison to the profile. As I recall they compared the profile to guy they caught whose name I won't even attempt to butcher. It didn't match very well because they had limited information, of which some was deliberately intended to mislead. Therefore I was not very impressed with the reasoning skills of the person who used that as an example.

As for what you quoted I'd note that the FBI database has a helluva lot more than 100 cases to study, thus I'm more impressed with their data and conclusions on the subject. I'd also like to note this from a global perspective, can you accept the possibility that there are those out there in academia who believe profiling leads to discrimination against certain groups? That for political reasons they just might be interested in 'discrediting' the field as they feel it leads to injustices? That it is 'possible, indeed probable' ( ) that might color their findings just a little bit?

I really would rather not get into politics, I just bring this up as I suspect we could trade links all night long and not get anywhere, because we can each find support for our position. It's just possible the police and other groups might disagree on this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

deleted

 

[Chris_Halkides]

psychic

He says he "helped". I never said successful investigations hadn't employed profilers. Psychics have "helped" successful investigations also.

shuttlt,

By your choice of words, one might infer that you are comparing Douglas to psychics. Is that your intention?
ETA
It seems as if it is. Why don't you look into the Williams case and get back to us?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

theory versus evidence

It's impossible to argue if we move from one topic to another before finishing the first one.

shuttlt,

You might try taking your own advice, IMO. A good place to start is whether or not you agree that the theory should or should not get ahead of the evidence. A good follow-up is to discuss whether or not it did in this case, based in part on the evidence I provided, namely the collection times of the knife and bra clasp and the time that the luminol was applied.

 

[Justinian2]

I know that you've all heard this or the news it contains about the Italian government itself investigating the prosecution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEjjffYfg8

It's quite qood news really.

Second thing. I really really like the way that Amanda Knox and her family have handled this. I, however, would have probably gone the more cowardly route and tried 'legal bribery'. I would have sucked up to Mignini and the police. I would have offered to pay them for their injuries, etc. That's the way I handled my own case anyway. I have no need to be honest or as upright as the Knox family. I would have groveled. A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero dies but one. I would have preferred the thousand deaths.

From my own standpoint, I much prefer the Knox method. The Knox method does more for world justice than my own more cowardly methodologies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

web forums

Can we cut the "blah, blah is noted" crap? Nobody says that in real life. For some reason people like to say that on web forums.

shuttlt,

OK, I withdraw those words. Your arguments seemed to me to be evasive, as if you were trying to change the subject to avoid admitting something uncomfortable. I do say that sort of thing in real life. How about answering the questions I have asked?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe a better analogy can be found

I probably didn't. Criminal profiling didn't come up then, I happen to have read a few articles on it, I was interested in other things. But really, why is it my job to criticise everything uniformly? This is the same thing that homeopaths and chiropractors say - why pick holes in us when there are so many other things that you aren't picking holes in? It's the billy goats gruff argument.

shuttlt,

This is a poor analogy. It would be nearer the truth to say that you are picking on some (in your estimation) chiropractors and not others.

 

[Mary_H]

What are you rebutting? People seem convinced I'm trying to use this whole criminal profiling thing to make an argument relating to the case. I've already said that I am purely responding to the, in my view dubious, authority of the criminal profiler in the quote. I feel like Amanda... why won't anybody believe me? At this point I'd gladly agree to anything to get out of this loop...

I noticed the same thing, shuttlt. And I agree with LondonJohn's take on your quote: "When we're all finally convinced they're guilty, I'm sure we'll be able to agree on some post-hoc rationalization of why they did it. The second part will be easy once the first part has been achieved."

It is "an interesting position," and certainly related to your observations about profiling and confirmation bias. It's a surprisingly easy exercise to run through in one's mind.

 

[Mary_H]

I know that you've all heard this or the news it contains about the Italian government itself investigating the prosecution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aEjjffYfg8

It's quite qood news really.

Second thing. I really really like the way that Amanda Knox and her family have handled this. I, however, would have probably gone the more cowardly route and tried 'legal bribery'. I would have sucked up to Mignini and the police. I would have offered to pay them for their injuries, etc. That's the way I handled my own case anyway. I have no need to be honest or as upright as the Knox family. I would have groveled. A coward dies a thousand deaths, a hero dies but one. I would have preferred the thousand deaths.

From my own standpoint, I much prefer the Knox method. The Knox method does more for world justice than my own more cowardly methodologies.

I would guess there are a lot of differences between the circumstances of your arrest and the circumstances of Amanda's arrest, including yourselves, your families, your backgrounds, the locations, the alleged crimes, and so on. You shouldn't compare your situation to Amanda's. The Knox method is admirable, to say the least, but your method might be more effective in other possible worlds.

 

[Antony]

If AK and RS are the killers, we just can't know what the reason is.

This is the kind of things a pro-innocent debater would point out: that it simply does not make sense to imagine that Amanda and Raff would ever have been involved.

Not for no reason.

When we're all finally convinced they're guilty, I'm sure we'll be able to agree on some post-hoc rationalization of why they did it. The second part will be easy once the first part has been achieved.

... and these, alas, could have been the words of a die-hard guilter: there's no need to rationalise the accusations; we don't need evidence; we don't need motive; the court found them guilty so we'll just tell ourselves that there must have been evidence, and the pair of them must have had a reason for doing it. It seems you've given up on finding Alt+F4's "dozens of cases" to substantiate that Amanda and Raff, like them, could have just suddenly turned into monsters.

Shuttlt, I appreciate that you are trying to argue this case intelligently (unlike too many of the pro-guilt JREF posters) and I don't think you're a die-hard guilter. What I would like you to recognise is that the case for Amanda and Raff's guilt requires too much suspension of disbelief.

On the other hand (as far as I can see), the main obstacle for some in doubting the verdict is that they can't believe that the police and judiciary would behave they way they have done. This in spite of the fact that the history of (in)justice around the world is dotted with cases of officialdom doing very much what the Perugia authorities have done in this case: coerced statements, destroyed, concealed and manipulated evidence, and courts acting as a rubber-stamp for police and prosecution assertions.

The Perugia authorities are on trial in this case, and are doing badly. Once you recognise that, you will have no problem believing that Amanda and Raffaele are entirely innocent.

 

[Kaosium]

This is the kind of things a pro-innocent debater would point out: that it simply does not make sense to imagine that Amanda and Raff would ever have been involved.

... and these, alas, could have been the words of a die-hard guilter: there's no need to rationalise the accusations; we don't need evidence; we don't need motive; the court found them guilty so we'll just tell ourselves that there must have been evidence, and the pair of them must have had a reason for doing it. It seems you've given up on finding Alt+F4's "dozens of cases" to substantiate that Amanda and Raff, like them, could have just suddenly turned into monsters.

...and then turned back again--the very next day! Isn't that a neat trick? To have been pretty much typical college students, then monsters for a night, then back to normalcy, which they've maintained ever since in jail.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

OK, I withdraw those words. Your arguments seemed to me to be evasive, as if you were trying to change the subject to avoid admitting something uncomfortable.

I may come across as being evasive because I never entered into a discussion of theory before evidence/evidence before theory, yet people keep responding to my posts as if I've made some controversial claim in that regard. If I think criminal profiling is bollocks, what do you think I think about any such theory the police or the prosecution or the court may have used... in fact I've told you this already.

To give you a fuller answer, it is inevitable that theory and evidence will bubble around together. So long as the theory/theories is/are provisional and subject to reexamination, I think that's the best one can do. A pseudo-scientific theory is always a pseudo-scientific theory whether it comes before the evidence or after the evidence.

Is that a sufficient answer? Why would I be evasive? What have I got to conceal?

 

[shuttlt]

When we're all finally convinced they're guilty, I'm sure we'll be able to agree on some post-hoc rationalization of why they did it. The second part will be easy once the first part has been achieved.

... and these, alas, could have been the words of a die-hard guilter: there's no need to rationalise the accusations; we don't need evidence; we don't need motive; the court found them guilty so we'll just tell ourselves that there must have been evidence, and the pair of them must have had a reason for doing it.

Are you responding to my post? Could you point out where I said any of these things?

It seems you've given up on finding Alt+F4's "dozens of cases" to substantiate that Amanda and Raff, like them, could have just suddenly turned into monsters.

I went to bed. Implausible as it might be I have other things to do.

Shuttlt, I appreciate that you are trying to argue this case intelligently (unlike too many of the pro-guilt JREF posters) and I don't think you're a die-hard guilter. What I would like you to recognise is that the case for Amanda and Raff's guilt requires too much suspension of disbelief.

I doubt I'm going to come down conclusively on guilt/innocence reasonable doubt/not reasonable doubt etc... There have been times I was pretty sure they were guilty and times when I felt there was a good possibility that they were innocent. However, that's not the way I've been looking at the case for a very long time now. I find the individual topics that this case throw up interesting enough discussions in isolation.

On the other hand (as far as I can see), the main obstacle for some in doubting the verdict is that they can't believe that the police and judiciary would behave they way they have done. This in spite of the fact that the history of (in)justice around the world is dotted with cases of officialdom doing very much what the Perugia authorities have done in this case: coerced statements, destroyed, concealed and manipulated evidence, and courts acting as a rubber-stamp for police and prosecution assertions.

The Perugia authorities are on trial in this case, and are doing badly. Once you recognise that, you will have no problem believing that Amanda and Raffaele are entirely innocent.

Doubtless.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

This is a poor analogy. It would be nearer the truth to say that you are picking on some (in your estimation) chiropractors and not others.

Even I'm not going to get caught up in an debate on the relative appropriateness of different fairytale analogies.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

By your choice of words, one might infer that you are comparing Douglas to psychics. Is that your intention?

I think there are parallels.

Why don't you look into the Williams case and get back to us?

What about it do you want me to take note of. Wikipedia implies he was caught by normal police methods. It also mentions polygraphs results, which are another popular topic on the JREF. There doesn't seem to be an indication of past violence in the article.

 

[zeb]

Shutit

Shuttit.
Every real fact that been put your way, you have spin the said "fact into a none fact".
If you are some one that knows, about computers which I have in my mind, you do.
In the Apple mac, the time of the computer is recorded, when the computer is connected it will not mater if you watch movies, or move your files, these will, record the time of that file,s has been moved.
But the real fact is that the apple mac has a timer when you start the computer, the computer will record the time, if you go out and have a cup of tea, or a beer, and you compter lights are out, you hit a key, this is recorded in the exe file. the time and date when, you hit that key.
These so called experts, in IT should have made the connetions, but thy did not.
They will now I think, but it,s to late, mybe a pink slip in America, or ub40, in the UK.
Its sad that this what happens on every computer, you have a time on, and a time off.
Stop the spin and look, at the real facts.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit.
Every real fact that been put your way, you have spin the said "fact into a none fact".

Most "facts" aren't absolute.

If you are some one that knows, about computers which I have in my mind, you do.
In the Apple mac, the time of the computer is recorded, when the computer is connected it will not mater if you watch movies, or move your files, these will, record the time of that file,s has been moved.

These things are generally recorded across most systems. It depends more on the filesystem (at least in so far as file access times go) than the operating system itself. By no means every user action is logged though. I just checked the basic event logs in Windows and there is very little evidence there to say at what times I've been in front of the computer and at what times I've been doing other things.

But the real fact is that the apple mac has a timer when you start the computer, the computer will record the time, if you go out and have a cup of tea, or a beer, and you compter lights are out, you hit a key, this is recorded in the exe file. the time and date when, you hit that key.

I doubt it records that you hit a key. Perhaps it does, but my best guess would be that if this system event is recorded it won't say why the keyboard light changed state. Unless the keyboard light turning on and off is implemented in hardware there will be other reasons why it might change state. Having said that, the default assumption would be that somebody pressed a key.

These so called experts, in IT should have made the connetions, but thy did not.
They will now I think, but it,s to late, mybe a pink slip in America, or ub40, in the UK.
Its sad that this what happens on every computer, you have a time on, and a time off.
Stop the spin and look, at the real facts.

What is logged will vary with your system settings. That the keyboard light changing state is logged surprises me. One would have thought that the file containing the log would have come up in their search of recently modified files. I guess it could be logged in binary rather than plaintext.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

On profiling

And a version of Randi's classic astrology test:

From the same page as the previous quote.

and

shuttlt,

"A study in the field of behavioral psychology (Pinizzotto and Finkel, 1990) provides initial data on its effectiveness. Results suggest that profilers can produce more useful and valid criminal profiles than clinical psychologists or even experienced crime investigators. In contrast to this study, it should not be overlooked that this method is fraught with many difficulties and pressures in the real world. However, impressive successes in various cases all over the world, such as the apprehension of Arthur Shawcross and Frank Fuchs, the Austrian bomber, show that this method is at least helping to solve violent and other crimes.
Pinizzotto, A. J., Finkel, N. J.: Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study, in: Law and Human Behavior, 14 (1990), p. 215 – 234." link here.