Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Fair enough - it was a bit of an off the cuff scenario and I said I couldn't prove it but it gets the ball rolling. AK initially denied ever knowing RG and then admitted a couple of meetings - why deny it initially? If the 'prank' involved lending RG her key . . .

Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke.

 

[el buscador]

Fair enough - it was a bit of an off the cuff scenario and I said I couldn't prove it but it gets the ball rolling. AK initially denied ever knowing RG and then admitted a couple of meetings - why deny it initially? If the 'prank' involved lending RG her key . . .

IIRC Amanda actually described rudy to the police as a visiter to the boys downstairs. But she couldn't remember his name.

 

[cuki777]

Oddness

No, you're probably not that naive. I don't think the word "streetwise" was invented to describe Raffaele Sollecito though.

What I really mean is, that remark can be interpreted in a number of ways. By no stretch of the imagination is it strong or irrefutable evidence of guilt.

Rolfe.

Hi Rolfe. Thanks for re-assessing my character You're still using the G word where I prefer I for Involvement. In itself, I agree, this event is not strong or irrefutable but I would give it a 7/10 'oddness' factor. For me the number of events times their oddness factor points to involvement.

 

[Mary_H]

Honestly Dave, I think it would be really cool if your roommate signed up for a JREF account of her own.

Rolfe.

I, too, have wondered about what the point of adding the roommate's opinion is.

 

[Malkmus]

Hi Rolfe. 1. Generally, I'm not that naive. 2. I agree it's a 'poorly-considered remark'. 3. I'm not taking a pro-guilt stance 4. An 'amateur' trying to hide their involvement is likely to slip-up a few times.

But since he was wrong, and items had been stolen - from Meredith's purse that had Rudy's DNA on it - how does that fit in to what you're implying?

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Rolfe. Thanks for re-assessing my character You're still using the G word where I prefer I for Involvement. In itself, I agree, this event is not strong or irrefutable but I would give it a 7/10 'oddness' factor. For me the number of events times their oddness factor points to involvement.

"Involvement" is simply guilt dressed up in its Sunday best.

 

[Rolfe]

If either of them knew that Meredith was lying murdered behind that locked door before it was opened, then that's guilt of something.

Rolfe.

 

[cuki777]

Hi Mary

"Involvement" is simply guilt dressed up in its Sunday best.

Thanks for Kate Mansey pointer. If someone lends a friend their dad's car with out asking and the friend gets drunk and runs someone over, yes you're 'involved' but no you are not guilty of the killing.

As I've said the total guilt or total innocent positions are akin to a religious approach.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Sorry for late reply - working.

To say 'there has been no theft' with such authority implies a) you know too much about the details of the break in b) you are trying to steer the police to look on this as an intruder not just a burglar

However if you just spent who-knows-how-long staging a break-in to purposely make it look like someone broke in to rob the place would you not at least state "I can't tell exactly what is missing."?

It makes no sense if you accept that the break-in was staged to then assume the stager would say something as stupid as "There has been no theft."

However if you saw the break-in mess and the computer on the floor would you not assume no valuables were taken?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hi Rolfe. Thanks for re-assessing my character You're still using the G word where I prefer I for Involvement. In itself, I agree, this event is not strong or irrefutable but I would give it a 7/10 'oddness' factor. For me the number of events times their oddness factor points to involvement.

What you need to consider is the "base rate": How many things would innocent people say in the same time period which could, if written down and then scrutinised carefully for anything odd, be construed as odd?

As has been pointed out before you don't need to go beyond this case to find plenty of examples of police saying "odd" things, the roommate Filomena saying "odd" things and Meredith's friends saying "odd" things (oh my God, they changed their story about the time of Meredith's final meal!).

The difference seems to be that when the police, Filomena or Meredith's friends say something "odd", guilters are able to see immediately that a certain number of mistakes are completely natural when fallible people with fallible memories discuss a complicated case. Yet when Amanda or Raffaele say something "odd" they seem to fall into the assumption that innocent people never say anything "odd" because innocent people have perfect memories and never mis-speak, and conclude that because they said something "odd" they are more likely to be guilty.

 

[cuki777]

Thanks

Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke.

Point taken. Most accept she acknowledges meeting him two or three times.

 

[cuki777]

Hi Kevin

What you need to consider is the "base rate": How many things would innocent people say in the same time period which could, if written down and then scrutinised carefully for anything odd, be construed as odd?

As has been pointed out before you don't need to go beyond this case to find plenty of examples of police saying "odd" things, the roommate Filomena saying "odd" things and Meredith's friends saying "odd" things (oh my God, they changed their story about the time of Meredith's final meal!).

The difference seems to be that when the police, Filomena or Meredith's friends say something "odd", guilters are able to see immediately that a certain number of mistakes are completely natural when fallible people with fallible memories discuss a complicated case. Yet when Amanda or Raffaele say something "odd" they seem to fall into the assumption that innocent people never say anything "odd" because innocent people have perfect memories and never mis-speak, and conclude that because they said something "odd" they are more likely to be guilty.

Take your point but without doing an actual equation the number of events of note and their oddness score with AK and RS is significantly higher than Filomena's

 

[cuki777]

Hi PD

However if you just spent who-knows-how-long staging a break-in to purposely make it look like someone broke in to rob the place would you not at least state "I can't tell exactly what is missing."?

It makes no sense if you accept that the break-in was staged to then assume the stager would say something as stupid as "There has been no theft."

However if you saw the break-in mess and the computer on the floor would you not assume no valuables were taken?

I think I could stage that break-in in 5/10 minutes.

Stupidity-wise, we are not talking about professionals, so it could well be face-value stupidity.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Take your point but without doing an actual equation the number of events of note and their oddness score with AK and RS is significantly higher than Filomena's

As an absolute figure, or as a percentage of the scrutinised events?

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's actions and statements have been scrutinised far more heavily than Filomena's. If everyone makes mistakes n% of the time, then if you examine someone ten times as much you'll find ten times as many mistakes.

It's also worth pointing out again that it's not just Filomena, various prosecution/judicial identities have also said and done a very large number of "odd" things. If Amanda or Raffaele saying something "odd" means they are murderers, does the "odd" behaviour of Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Massei and Christiani mean that they are part of a conspiracy to frame Knox and Sollecito? Or should we be open to interpretations of "odd" behaviour other than that any "odd" behaviour is evidence that they are guilty of the worst thing possible?

 

[Rolfe]

I think I could stage that break-in in 5/10 minutes.

Stupidity-wise, we are not talking about professionals, so it could well be face-value stupidity.

But why does evidence of stupidity (which I'll grant you there is in abundance) equate to evidence of guilt? Everything you mention is just as capable of supporting an innocent explanation as a guilty one. In order to choose the guilty explanation you need some other definite evidence of guilt.

Rolfe.

 

[tsig]

Police, prosecutors and forensic scientists, not just police. All liars according to some. Nope, I don't buy it.

In order to deny Amanda's lie they have to postulate everyone else's.

 

[cuki777]

Involvementer

As an absolute figure, or as a percentage of the scrutinised events?

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's actions and statements have been scrutinised far more heavily than Filomena's. If everyone makes mistakes n% of the time, then if you examine someone ten times as much you'll find ten times as many mistakes.

It's also worth pointing out again that it's not just Filomena, various prosecution/judicial identities have also said and done a very large number of "odd" things. If Amanda or Raffaele saying something "odd" means they are murderers, does the "odd" behaviour of Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Massei and Christiani mean that they are part of a conspiracy to frame Knox and Sollecito? Or should we be open to interpretations of "odd" behaviour other than that any "odd" behaviour is evidence that they are guilty of the worst thing possible?

My position is the 'oddness' factor implies involvement, I am not saying it implies murder. You seem to be arguing that odd behaviour around a crime scene should be disregarded cos Hey, we all do odd things.

 

[tsig]

lionking

so you don't think it has ever happened? What is your explanation for the "Norfolk Four" case?
By the way, what about my time of death question?

Dave

Not the Amanda case.

 

[cuki777]

Two types of stupidity

But why does evidence of stupidity (which I'll grant you there is in abundance) equate to evidence of guilt? Everything you mention is just as capable of supporting an innocent explanation as a guilty one. In order to choose the guilty explanation you need some other definite evidence of guilt.

Rolfe.

To clarify, I meant it was stupid of RS to let this slip and imply involvement not that he's a stupid person making nonsensical remarks.

 

[cuki777]

If either of them knew that Meredith was lying murdered behind that locked door before it was opened, then that's guilt of something.

Rolfe.

Yes, I agree, and that could be why they have gone to some length to conceal any involvement.