Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Your documentation proves little other than a previously self aggrandized skill in filling in Google blanks.

From the documentation below, admittedly similarly obtained, several examples are cited that pretty much paint the same 'relationship' I originally posted, and directly contradict yours.
Example: Filomena *testifying* (not same as in an article) that they 'had issues' before even your 'drifting apart' quote.
This seems hardly able to be termed, or even parsed* to be 'friends'

Per haps the best end to this 'hunt Google, then holler here' exercise is that Meredith's friends were witnesses for the Prosecution...hardly 'friendly' no matter how parsed* or how exhaustively Internet is scoured for words/pictures of close companionship.

*parse=to examine in a minute way : analyze critically
kindly spare us all and address your continued erroneous criticism of correct meaning here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/parse

1) Amanda was a flirt with the men and Meredith didn't see eye to eye with her. The two were like chalk and cheese - totally opposite in character. Meredith was calm, sweet and shy. Amanda was an extrovert and always showing off."

Other friends recalled how Miss Kercher had argued with Miss Knox about her personal hygiene and her failure to do her share of the household chores, as well as being unhappy with the number of men Miss Knox brought back to the villa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...anda-Knox-trial-Meredith-Kercher-profile.html

2) Seven friends of British student Meredith Kercher will tomorrow give evidence in her murder trial as the case continues.

Sophie Purton, Amy Frost, Natalie Hayworth, Jade Bidwell, Samantha Rodenhurst, Helen Powell and Robyn Butterworth are key to the prosecution.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...hs-friends-prepare-testify.html#ixzz1NrIUe6pX

3)The testimony of Miss Butterworth and other friends of Miss Kercher prompted a dramatic intervention by Knox.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...rediths-friends-claim-emotionless-murder.html)

4)Filomena testified that Meredith and Amanda had begun to have issues with each other.
www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/P30/ - Cached)

As another poster pointed out, and my title insinuated, we have been down this dusty road several times before and positions are unchanged.

Other than providing more fodder for unsolicited spelling/grammar lessons from others, I find the subject adequately beaten and politely end participation in this elementary Google contest.

What an erratic response.....

1) Do you really believe that Giacomo Silenzi (who could barely speak English) would be able to say the words he's quoted as saying in that very partisan article you provided: "Amanda was a flirt with the men and Meredith didn't see eye to eye with her. The two were like chalk and cheese - totally opposite in character. Meredith was calm, sweet and shy. Amanda was an extrovert and always showing off." I would even be surprised if some of the English idioms ascribed to Silenzi here even have equivalents in Italian. I suggest that this quote was a very large paraphrasing at best, and a fabrication at worst.

2) Of course Meredith's English friends were called by the prosecution: they were there to testify as to what had occurred earlier that evening. This was part of the prosecution's case, not the defence's case. I'm guessing that you think they were called as character witnesses against Knox, but they weren't. You're wrong.

3) Most of your supposed "gotcha" quotes deal with the supposed behaviour of Knox after the murder. I would suggest that the interpretation of this behaviour by many people associated with the case has been coloured by their ex-post facto belief that Knox was guilty.

4) You're seriously suggesting that TJMK is a reliable and neutral source of information? That tells me quite a bit in itself.

5) The term "self-aggrandized" (note the necessary hyphen) is a personal insult. Please don't insult me again, or I'll report the post (something I try hard not to do).

6) "Parse" doesn't mean what you think it means. But if you want to carry on misusing it, that's OK with me. I shall misuse it myself for my own amusement. In fact, even now I am parsing the web looking at new issues of Blu-ray discs.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a post-script to the whole offender profiling issue, I'd wager that if a dozen experienced profilers were show the crime scene and the autopsy report in the Kercher case and asked to produce a profile, not one of them would suggest that the crime was the work of a group of people which included a woman. I think they would all produce profiles which suggested that the murder was the work of a lone male killer, who was quite youthful and inexperienced (disorganised crime scene, covered body, no attempt to move the body). I think that the profiles might also suggest that the culprit had experience of petty crime and minor sexual deviancy. Of course, this is all total speculation on my part

It's worth bearing in mind that acts of extreme violence committed by groups are extremely rare, outside of gang warfare or tribal rivalries (e.g. football hooliganism). And it's even more rare for a woman to be involved. Of course there are some murders where women participate alongside men, but the circumstances have - without exception - been particular and peculiar. In pretty much every case, the female has been susceptible to controlling influences, and she has been progressively indoctrinated by a male sexual partner - usually over many years - before the first serious crimes are committed by the pair.


This is vividly illustrated if we look at a few of the examples that the pro-guilt groupthinkers tend to hold up as more-or-less direct read-across comparators to Knox and Sollecito:

1) In the case of Homolka and Bernardo, Bernardo (the male) had been raised in a family where familial sexual abuse was rife, and had already committed a number of rapes by the time he met Homolka. She was 17, naive and submissive when she met him - he was her first serious boyfriend, and certainly her first sexual partner. Bernadro continued his rapes (without Homolka's knowledge) for the first year or so of their relationship, while he gradually established a controlling hold over her. It wasn't until almost four years into their relationship that Bernardo and Homolka committed their first offences together.

2) Hindley and Brady followed a very similar pattern to the Homolka/Bernardo case above. Brady (male) tortured animals as a child, and was a convicted burglar by the age of 15. Hindley became infatuated with Brady, who again was her first serious boyfriend and her first sexual partner. As Brady indoctrinated Hindley into his extremist views and sexual deviancy, he moved her towards the threshold of committing crimes by planning bank robberies with her (which were never carried out). The first sex crimes committed by Brady and Hindley took place over two years after they started their relationship.

There are many other examples (Bonnie & Clyde, Fred & Rose West, etc) which follow similar patterns of gradual indoctrination measured in years, not months, or weeks - or SIX DAYS. See, one of the critically important things to remember about group crimes is that there has to be an extremely high level of trust among the participants. That trust is only mutually gained by having an intensely close and intimate level of emotional bond with the other person/people in the group, and a well-established comfort with each other's moral code. It also almost always involves a gradual breaking down of moral boundaries in small increments over a long period of time, before the joint commission of the most heinous crimes becomes acceptable to all the people involved.

Interestingly, Brady and Hindley got caught because Brady allowed his hubris and arrogance to get the better of him: having successfully "converted" Hindley to the extent that she was a willing participant and facilitator in the horrific murders, Brady took the chance of introducing Hindley's brother in law, David Smith, to the group by having him witness the murder of Edward Evans. It's obvious that Brady had judged that Smith would find the murder thrilling - thus expanding the group. Instead, however, Smith was appalled and informed the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

1)Gotcha would be more appropriately to rebuttals, of which yours is an 'example' and not to my original

2) TJMK is by far the most accessed Forum/site for information about the case, but you really knew that.

3) self aggrandizing is very applicable to, and is incorporated into many of your arguments.
It is no more insulting than the opening or closing lines of *most* of your arguments to opponents and you know that also.
Example: your use/positioning of 'erratic' above may also be considered insulting, one might suppose

Your self imagined position of authority has also been used in your past 'arguments' frequently to threaten other posters as you continue above.

I am absolutely unimpressed with your definition of insults and even more so with your improper threats.
I will continue to do my best to comply *with what the Administration deems acceptable* and ignore your obvious transgressions, as well as your meaningless corrections and your threats posed as 'arguments'.

So I take it that you concede the point that Filomena didn't say there were specific problems with the relationship between Meredith and Amanda, and that the English friends were not called as character witnesses against Knox (I assume this because your only response to my post so far was off-topic and purely related to me personally - not to any of my arguments).

And with respect to what you wrote, you used the term "threat", not me. It was not a threat. It was a comment that (in my view) you used a personal insult against me. What's more, I said I wasn't interested in reporting it, but asked you to refrain from such direct insults in the future. What don't you understand about my position?

However, you seem to have done it again with all this nonsense about my "self-imagined position of authority" (note again the necessary hyphen). Where have I ever presented myself as a figure of authority? I can only imagine that this is how you view me - I guess I should be flattered, but I'd only be flattered if such a view came from someone whose opinions and arguments I actually respect....

 

[pilot padron]

So I take it that you concede the point that Filomena didn't say there were specific problems with the relationship between Meredith and Amanda, and that the English friends were not called as character witnesses against Knox

What don't you understand about my position?

I guess I should be flattered, but I'd only be flattered if such a view came from someone whose opinions and arguments I actually respect....

If you read what Filomena said in my URL from the most accessed resource, TJMK , you would not need ask that question nor would you triumph a non existent 'concession'.

English friends as I noted were calledas witnesses by/for the Prosecution.
Surely I need not explain that the Prosecution rarely calls witnesses to be 'friendly' to the defendant.
Do I ?

What don't you understand about *my* position ?

Your closing comments about flattery strongly support and indeed make self evident the points I make in previous arguments about what constitutes and how/when/where/by whom insults are usually used.

 

[Chris C]

To agenda driven minds, even more desperate lately to find any straws to prop up objections to a unanimous jury decision about a murderess, to now include what a guy fully convicted of beating a child to death with a shovel has to say, perhaps what you argue is acceptable.

To most others, however, rather than building such a house of cards founded on a picture that shows nothing more than people in the same place at the same time, may I suggest a review of the sworn testimony of these same people as well as Filomena, a much longer and better positioned observer for a direct denial of your purported 'friendship'.

Yes, but this seems to be the best pro guilt people can do. Instead of actually proving she was involved in the murder, they resort to character assassination as proof of guilt. It just shows how weak the case against knox/sollecito is. Guilters attack knox rather than attack Sollecito's character and then defend Guede's character and try and make him look like an innocent bystander. Funny, how it seems they mention how Filomena claims Meredith argued with knox over the 2 guys that Knox brought home. One being a friend of Meredith's drug peddling boyfriend and the other Sollecito. Or how they argued over Knox not doing her share of the chores. Who was doing Meredith's chores before Meredith moved in? Apparently it must have been Knox.

 

[Antony]

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

It's the implication. I said previously that we're supposed to believe that Amanda and Raffaele carried out the murder for no reason, and with no warning of previous violent behaviour. You typed in reply "Not for no reason". In a later message in reply to LJ, you spoke vaguely about a "post-hoc rationalization", supposedly "when we're all finally convinced they're guilty".

All of this says to me: because they're guilty, we're supposed to think that they had a reason. I included the usual guilter logic, not because you said it, but because it's the same thinking: because they're guilty, there must be evidence - because they're guilty, the break-in must have been staged; because they're guilty, Raff's kitchen knife must be the murder weapon; because they're guilty, the bra-clasp DNA reading must be genuine. It's arse-about-face, as we say in England.

Coming back to your curious half-prediction ("when we're all finally convinced they're guilty") - my position and that of many on the innocent side, is this: the time is long-gone when it would be possible for evidence to become public, that would satisfy us that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. That's not because we have taken a dogmatic position; it's that were such evidence to exist, then it could not take 3-and-a-half years for it to become known.

So there is no prospect of most of us being "finally convinced they're guilty" (regardless of the outcome of the appeal). Surely you must be aware of this.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you read what Filomena said in my URL, you would not need ask that question nor would you triumph a non existent 'concession'.

English friends as I noted were called witnesses for Prosecution.
Surely I need not explain that the Prosecution rarely calls witnesses to be 'friendly' to the defendant.
Do I ?

What don't you understand about *my* position ?

Your closing comments about flattery strongly support and indeed make self evident the points I make in previous arguments about what constitutes and how/when/where/by whom insults are usually used.

Are you referring to this section of your previous post:

4)Filomena testified that Meredith and Amanda had begun to have issues with each other.
www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/P30/ - Cached)

If so, you've not only provided a dud link, but you've also linked to TJMK. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to link to a primary source. Either news media reports or the Massei report will do fine. A partisan website which filters and "interprets" information according to a chosen agenda will not do fine, I'm afraid.

You also don't seem to understand that not all witnesses called by the prosecution are there to directly attack the defendant(s). Do you think that, for example, the autopsy doctor - also a prosecution witness - was providing evidence against Knox or Sollecito? Or was he merely providing objective testimony on what he found during the autopsy? The English friends were there to testify as to Meredith's movements and activities between around 4pm and 9pm on the day of her murder. I don't believe you properly understand how a trial process works.

Lastly, I have no idea what you're on about in your final paragraph. I'm certain that it's not related to the topic of this thread though......

ETA: Ahh I get it! You think that my implied statement that I don't respect your opinions and arguments is a personal insult. But it's not a personal insult: it's a refutation by me of your arguments and opinions, most if not all of which are - in my view - poorly reasoned, badly argued, unsupportable and incorrect. But that's my personal opinion: I'm sure there are many others who find your arguments and opinions to be compelling, logical, well-reasoned and eminently defensible...

 

[Kaosium]

The Nature of Corruption

For reasons not related to this discussion I got to thinking about this monologue today, and also something Fine recently posted regarding the 'awards' recently received by the police in Perugia. Fine made the point the celebration was more in appreciation by the people that live there for the police in general, not specific to the ones who butchered the 'investigation' into the death of Meredith Kercher. I don't think that's a bad thing personally, even though some of them I'd kinda like to see strung up by their short-n-curlies.

However I think that Youtube I linked above illustrates something relevant to this case, and more so offers some insight as to how such a tragic thing like the corruption and cover-up apparent in this case might have come about. Mignini, in his pathetic CNN interview, mentioned something about how he wasn't corrupt because there wasn't any money involved, which suggested to me he didn't have any idea of the insidious nature of corruption.

I like movies where different points of view are represented, one of the reason I enjoy Oliver Stone movies even though, let's face it, he's a little bit whacked. (This one wasn't his, of course, it was Meathead's) however in every movie of his I can recall at some point he 'gives the devil his due.' In "Wall Street" Gekko gets his 'Greed is good' monologue, which could have been written by Bernard Mandeville, in "Platoon" the repellent character of Tom Berenger has his moment, and in "Any Given Sunday" the sleazy trainer played by James Woods has his brilliant scene as his career dissolves.

In this one I think Col. Jessup is supposed to be an 'incorruptible' man, like the prosecutors in Italy, and considering the lack of oversight and the existence of calunnia charges, the police as well. Considering his career and just where he was headed, odds are Jessup went to Annapolis, which is an environment which is supposed to produce 'incorruptible' men, or at least as close as can be achieved. They spend four years in an excruciating environment designed to weed out the ones who can't take it or can be easily tempted, where even a small otherwise inconsequential lie can get them cashiered.

However, much like the police and prosecutors in Perugia, he made a mistake and then he tried to cover it up. He 'lied,' not in a little way, but in a big one where there would be serious consequences. He'd lose everything he'd ever worked for, and was about to achieve, which as I recall was the head of No Such Agency. He was one of the 'Good Guys,' just like the police in Perugia and the prosecutors probably think of themselves, someone who sacrificed to defend people from the 'Bad Guys' that would hurt the people who couldn't protect themselves. He thinks that whatever he did, it was for the 'greater good,' that despite the error made, which was hardly intentional and not unheard of, that in the final analysis it was justified and he'd convinced himself of that, much like the police and prosecution in Perugia might have when they lied about the interrogation and then later defamed (mostly) Amanda Knox.

In this one though, he comes face to face with something known as 'oversight.' There are mechanisms in place to try to ensure the 'honorable men' stay that way, and when they don't they are weeded out so the whole institution doesn't corrupt completely. This is something that appears to be notably missing in the Italian System. I asked Machiavelli once who could have sacked Mignini when he started to go off the reservation, and the reply was only one old guy in Rome who'd never do such a thing. There's not much in the way of other elements available which might check the power of the police and prosecution in Perugia either, the other judges are part of the same network which appears to lead to a 'go along to get along' attitude, the press and public are cowed with defamation and calunnia charges, the elected government runs an election on reforming the 'police state' and appears to be more subject to the Italian Court System than the other way around.

However, to give the devil their due, perhaps the reason the people of Perugia might want to honor their police, if not specifically their actions in every case, might be as they offer some 'oversight' over the sordid demons of our nature and without them there wouldn't be any unobtainable utopian 'anarchy,' being as some who believe in any composition of the bolded word might have forgotten why even a saint chose that word and what it means. Instead it would likely be replaced by a world where 'the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must,' which is a rather repulsive concept as well.

Unfortunately that's also something that can be 'achieved' through the corruption of the very institutions designed to prevent it. The tragic irony of our fate as imperfect beings and that which we create.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is another reason I would like to see the pictures on the computers. The complaint about the cleaning was directed at both Amanda and Meredith from the Italian girls that felt they were doing more than their fair share. I don't pay much attention to the bringing men over as Meredith did the same. The vibrator is a pretty silly bit of vindictive hearsay in my opinion.

The evidence is that Meredith and Amanda were developing a friendship. In just a few short weeks they had attended a concert and a chocolate festival together. A link was posted yesterday showing them having dinner together on 30 October. There are also records of friendly text messages.

 

[LondonJohn]

For reasons not related to this discussion I got to thinking about this monologue today, and also something Fine recently posted regarding the 'awards' recently received by the police in Perugia. Fine made the point the celebration was more in appreciation by the people that live there for the police in general, not specific to the ones who butchered the 'investigation' into the death of Meredith Kercher. I don't think that's a bad thing personally, even though some of them I'd kinda like to see strung up by their short-n-curlies.

However I think that Youtube I linked above illustrates something relevant to this case, and more so offers some insight as to how such a tragic thing like the corruption and cover-up apparent in this case might have come about. Mignini, in his pathetic CNN interview, mentioned something about how he wasn't corrupt because there wasn't any money involved, which suggested to me he didn't have any idea of the insidious nature of corruption.

I like movies where different points of view are represented, one of the reason I enjoy Oliver Stone movies even though, let's face it, he's a little bit whacked. (This one wasn't his, of course, it was Meathead's) however in every movie of his I can recall at some point he 'gives the devil his due.' In "Wall Street" Gekko gets his 'Greed is good' monologue, which could have been written by Bernard Mandeville, in "Platoon" the repellent character of Tom Berenger has his moment, and in "Any Given Sunday" the sleazy trainer played by James Woods has his brilliant scene as his career dissolves.

In this one I think Col. Jessup is supposed to be an 'incorruptible' man, like the prosecutors in Italy, and considering the lack of oversight and the existence of calunnia charges, the police as well. Considering his career and just where he was headed, odds are Jessup went to Annapolis, which is an environment which is supposed to produce 'incorruptible' men, or at least as close as can be achieved. They spend four years in an excruciating environment designed to weed out the ones who can't take it or can be easily tempted, where even a small otherwise inconsequential lie can get them cashiered.

However, much like the police and prosecutors in Perugia, he made a mistake and then he tried to cover it up. He 'lied,' not in a little way, but in a big one where there would be serious consequences. He'd lose everything he'd ever worked for, and was about to achieve, which as I recall was the head of No Such Agency. He was one of the 'Good Guys,' just like the police in Perugia and the prosecutors probably think of themselves, someone who sacrificed to defend people from the 'Bad Guys' that would hurt the people who couldn't protect themselves. He thinks that whatever he did, it was for the 'greater good,' that despite the error made, which was hardly intentional and not unheard of, that in the final analysis it was justified and he'd convinced himself of that, much like the police and prosecution in Perugia might have when they lied about the interrogation and then later defamed (mostly) Amanda Knox.

In this one though, he comes face to face with something known as 'oversight.' There are mechanisms in place to try to ensure the 'honorable men' stay that way, and when they don't they are weeded out so the whole institution doesn't corrupt completely. This is something that appears to be notably missing in the Italian System. I asked Machiavelli once who could have sacked Mignini when he started to go off the reservation, and the reply was only one old guy in Rome who'd never do such a thing. There's not much in the way of other elements available which might check the power of the police and prosecution in Perugia either, the other judges are part of the same network which appears to lead to a 'go along to get along' attitude, the press and public are cowed with defamation and calunnia charges, the elected government runs an election on reforming the 'police state' and appears to be more subject to the Italian Court System than the other way around.

However, to give the devil their due, perhaps the reason the people of Perugia might want to honor their police, if not specifically their actions in every case, might be as they offer some 'oversight' over the sordid demons of our nature and without them there wouldn't be any unobtainable utopian 'anarchy,' being as some who believe in any composition of the bolded word might have forgotten why even a saint chose that word and what it means. Instead it would likely be replaced by a world where 'the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must,' which is a rather repulsive concept as well.

Unfortunately that's also something that can be 'achieved' through the corruption of the very institutions designed to prevent it. The tragic irony of our fate as imperfect beings and that which we create.

A good point, and a valid comparison in my view (even though one of them is semi-fictional). In a similar vein, I couldn't help noticing the physical similarities between Mignini and Sepp Blatter. I got to wondering whether the similarities extended beyond the merely physical: after all, one of these two men is currently fighting an uphill battle against endemic corruption within his organisation, and is using political patronage and influence in a last-ditch effort to try to protect himself........ and the other is Sepp Blatter / Giuliano Mignini*







* delete as applicable

 

[babycondor]

As a post post script to the whole "group murders involving women with no previous history of violence" trope (?!?), the Charles Manson gang comes to mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a post post script to the whole "group murders involving women with no previous history of violence" trope (?!?), the Charles Manson gang comes to mind.

See, that IS a trope!

But the case of the "Manson family" is another interesting case study - one in which the use of hallucinogenic drugs and long-term psychological reprogramming by Manson (who knew exactly what he was doing) moulded impressionable young teens who felt alienated by society into disciples of Manson's twisted philosophies. The very fact that the significant majority of Manson's "family" were female suggests that disaffected young women were prime subjects for Manson's techniques.

Most of Manson's followers joined him during 1967, and then spent the following two years slowly altering their moral codes under Manson's instruction (which included the use of sex and hallucinogenic drugs as rewards (or their deprivation as punishments)). The family started to steal cars and food, and internal punishment beatings served as a form of "violence apprenticeship". By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders in August 1969, the girls involved had been with the family for over two years, and would essentially have done anything that Manson instructed them to do.

BTW: "A Few Good Men" has just started showing on network TV here - coincidence!

 

[JREF2010]

incompetent or intentional?

The court will rule on each of the requests made in the appeals including the prosecution's appeal. This includes things like the computers, the pillow stain, audiometric testing, mitigation, use of Amanda's statements, etc.
.

thanks for the response.

Allowing more appeal/reviews, as the computer, would be interesting. This seems to be the type of evidence thats not intensely debated between the sides.

I can't imagine Judge Hellman not allowing additional review of the computer work, especially, because the squad was obviously out of their area of expertise and there are numerous, documented mistakes made by these "experts."

In short, the computer experts appear to be viewed as bumbling goofball's to some or intelligent, corrupt experts who erased critical data, to others.

incompetent or intentional?

If corrupt, intentionally destroying data, I would think they would have just fried the laptop and accidentally smashed the hardrive with a hammer, for example. This didnt happen, and much was recovered eventually I read on another post.

So, I'd vote they just made mistakes, over and over. Seems a no brainer, to allow some new experts to review the computers at Raffaeles.

 

[shuttlt]

It's the implication. I said previously that we're supposed to believe that Amanda and Raffaele carried out the murder for no reason, and with no warning of previous violent behaviour. You typed in reply "Not for no reason". In a later message in reply to LJ, you spoke vaguely about a "post-hoc rationalization", supposedly "when we're all finally convinced they're guilty".

Yes

All of this says to me: because they're guilty, we're supposed to think that they had a reason.

Can they have been guilty and done it for literally 'no reason'?

I included the usual guilter logic, not because you said it, but because it's the same thinking: because they're guilty, there must be evidence

Guilty people do not always leave evidence.

- because they're guilty, the break-in must have been staged;

That would seem quite likely.

because they're guilty, Raff's kitchen knife must be the murder weapon;

I think there is a good chance of it.

because they're guilty, the bra-clasp DNA reading must be genuine.

It seems likely.

It's arse-about-face, as we say in England.

I come from Englandland as well. Now, all we have to do is agree that they are guilty and the above reasoning falls more or less into place.

Coming back to your curious half-prediction ("when we're all finally convinced they're guilty") - my position and that of many on the innocent side, is this: the time is long-gone when it would be possible for evidence to become public, that would satisfy us that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. That's not because we have taken a dogmatic position; it's that were such evidence to exist, then it could not take 3-and-a-half years for it to become known.

I don't expect you to become convinced. As I've said (how many times now) I'm not defending/pushing a position on guilt or innocence.

So there is no prospect of most of us being "finally convinced they're guilty" (regardless of the outcome of the appeal). Surely you must be aware of this.

Yes. I am aware of it. My point was that I believe it is a lot easier to accept explanations of "why" once one is convinced about the "what". You can't have a post-hoc rationalization as the cause of you accepting the thing you are trying to explain with the post-hoc rationalization.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes

That would seem quite likely.

I think there is a good chance of it.

It seems likely.

Yes. I am aware of it.

My point was that I believe it is a lot easier to accept explanations of "why" once one is convinced about the "what". You can't have a post-hoc rationalization as the cause of you accepting the thing you are trying to explain with the post-hoc rationalization.

I am not certain on the why part yet. The what happened to Raffaele I can accept. He was railroaded. I have seen many theories as to why.

1. Saving face. A big pronouncement was made that the case was solved, now they are stuck trying to prove a case based on pizza, a hip waggle, and some tears, or admitting they made a stupid mistake.

2. The cops are just incompetent and they were playing up to a media that wanted Amanda to be the killer involved in a group forced sexual assault and murder.

3. The police chief and Knox had a personality conflict and she was out to get her.

4. The cops and Mignini needed a big case to draw attention away from past mistakes and current legal problems. A simple burglary turned into assault and murder was too easy. They needed something that would result in a bunch of awards.

5. Mignini is just whacked and nobody dares cross him.

6. The large bag.

7. All of the above.

 

[LondonJohn]

thanks for the response.

Allowing more appeal/reviews, as the computer, would be interesting. This seems to be the type of evidence thats not intensely debated between the sides.

I can't imagine Judge Hellman not allowing additional review of the computer work, especially, because the squad was obviously out of their area of expertise and there are numerous, documented mistakes made by these "experts."

In short, the computer experts appear to be viewed as bumbling goofball's to some or intelligent, corrupt experts who erased critical data, to others.

incompetent or intentional?

If corrupt, intentionally destroying data, I would think they would have just fried the laptop and accidentally smashed the hardrive with a hammer, for example. This didnt happen, and much was recovered eventually I read on another post.

So, I'd vote they just made mistakes, over and over. Seems a no brainer, to allow some new experts to review the computers at Raffaeles.

I agree with your reasoning here.

And I also agree that it's highly likely that Hellmann will admit new evidence and expert testimony regarding Sollecito's laptop - perhaps in a ruling delivered once the DNA report has been reviewed by the court. Again (as I've stated before), I believe that the defence made a significant error in not having this analysis available in the first trial - although to be fair the ToD was less critical until the prosecution moved it back at the 11th hour in closing arguments, in order to marry with other pieces of the prosecution case (a move which I feel the Supreme Court would be interested in discussing if it ever gets that far, since the defence had no opportunity to offer evidence to rebut the revised ToD).

 

[Antony]

Yes


Can they have been guilty and done it for literally 'no reason'?


Guilty people do not always leave evidence.


That would seem quite likely.


I think there is a good chance of it.


It seems likely.


I come from Englandland as well. Now, all we have to do is agree that they are guilty and the above reasoning falls more or less into place.


I don't expect you to become convinced. As I've said (how many times now) I'm not defending/pushing a position on guilt or innocence.


Yes. I am aware of it. My point was that I believe it is a lot easier to accept explanations of "why" once one is convinced about the "what". You can't have a post-hoc rationalization as the cause of you accepting the thing you are trying to explain with the post-hoc rationalization.

I think you're missing the point I'm making. Anyone who starts from the position "Amanda and Raffaele are guilty", and then judges the existence of evidence or motive based on that belief, is not taking a rational approach to the case. Rational and fair-minded people start from the evidence (including a plausible motive for the crime) and make a judgement on guilt or innocence to conform to the evidence.

It now seems you aren't even pretending to do that. Your judgement about the quality of the knife and bra-clasp "evidence", as well as the claims about a "staged" break-in, is based on what you think about their likely guilt, or not. Can you not see how insane that is, and unjust?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you're missing the point I'm making. Anyone who starts from the position "Amanda and Raffaele are guilty", and then judges the existence of evidence or motive based on that belief, is not taking a rational approach to the case. Rational and fair-minded people start from the evidence (including a plausible motive for the crime) and make a judgement on guilt or innocence to conform to the evidence.

It now seems you aren't even pretending to do that. Your judgement about the quality of the knife and bra-clasp "evidence", as well as the claims about a "staged" break-in, is based on what you think about their likely guilt, or not. Can you not see how insane that is, and unjust?

Known in the trade as post hoc rationalisation

It's not uncommon among two particular groups: those who are generally poor thinkers, and those suffering from confirmation bias.

 

[Diastole]

However, to give the devil their due, perhaps the reason the people of Perugia might want to honor their police, if not specifically their actions in every case, might be as they offer some 'oversight' over the sordid demons of our nature and without them there wouldn't be any unobtainable utopian 'anarchy,' being as some who believe in any composition of the bolded word might have forgotten why even a saint chose that word and what it means. Instead it would likely be replaced by a world where 'the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must,' which is a rather repulsive concept as well.

Kaosium, you might enjoy "Il Divo", Paolo Sorrentino's 2008 biopic of Andreotti. While the story of a career Italian politician may sound like pretty dull viewing, I found the film to be surprisingly engrossing, anchored by Toni Servillo's remarkable impersonation of the lead character. A strong impression left by the film was the pervasive suspicion in Italy of malfeasance lurking behind outward propriety. Indeed, a strong strain of Italian political thought holds that the two decades of terrorism known as "The Years of Lead" was, in fact, a "false flag" operation, with the object of concentrating power among the centrist parties. I'm starting to understand why the absurd fable peddled by Mignini found so many willing buyers.

"You sin in thinking ill of people, but you are often right" - Giulio Andreotti

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Known in the trade as post hoc rationalisation

It's not uncommon among two particular groups: those who are generally poor thinkers, and those suffering from confirmation bias.

Another way of viewing it is that some people simply do not understand how to rationally analyse conditional probabilities.

If a rational person sees a lot of evidence that supports Hypothesis X (say, that Knox did it) they might get to a high degree of confidence that X is true. However if they afterwards see a lot of evidence that undermines Hypothesis X then their degree of confidence goes back down again. Rational people have no problem proportioning their beliefs to the evidence as they go along in this fashion.

What victims of confirmation bias, stubbornness, pride or just plain stupidity do is they get to a high degree of confidence that X is true and they get stuck there. When they later see a lot of evidence that undermines their hypothesis they don't reduce their confidence in their belief, they just start making things up to preserve the hypothesis without reducing their confidence in it.

Motive? Who needs one? They did it, so they must have had one.

Coherent theory of the crime? Who needs one? They did it, so there must be one.

...and so on ad infinitum. Once they get stuck at a high degree of confidence in a belief there's no shifting them because that belief is no longer conditional on the evidence, it's a permanent fixture of their mental landscape which the evidence must be shaped to fit.

(Note that there is an important difference between logical deduction, which is perfectly legitimate, and this kind of post hoc rationalisation. Deduction requires that you know your starting point(s) to be correct with a very, very high degree of certainty and that you maintain this high level of justified belief throughout the deductive process).