Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bri1]

Some of the guilters will never change their minds. I think people just have to accept that and move on. They have formed a community, if they deviate from that community's rule, they are excommunicated to a certain extent. It does seem kind of cult-like really. I'm sure they think they can say the same thing about this Jref forum, although here you are at least allowed to have and type dissenting opinions and conclusions.


Accept it. Move on.

The only reason that the guilters bother me any more is that they so perfectly reflect (?) the prosecution bullstuff. And that bothers me because of the way it influences the press and therefore general public reaction.

Some people at work started talking about the case the other day, all the usual woefully ignorant guilter memes (from the 3 or 4 news stories they've read about the case, and I explained that I'd followed the case in great detail, and tried to explain a little bit of why they were wrong, but got no indication that they thought it was even possible that they were wrong.
It genuinely put me into a couple of days of fairly existential depression. They're university-educated people, who work within a charity which help young people. They were willing to say to me (indirectly) that even though they knew my knowledge level about the case was beyond theirs by a million light years, and they know that I've spent most of my adult life training in critical thinking (philosophy) at one of the best universities in the country, they were probably right.
I find that so bizarre. I have a lay persons interest in physics, but I don't have any background in maths. If I was talking to a physicist (or even someone who'd graduated with a degree in physics) about a theory, and they disagreed with me, I'd automatically assume there was something I didn't understand about the theory because I didn't understand the maths.
I'd concede the point to them, unless I was willing to go off an attempt to understand the maths.
It makes me wonder what the point of education is.
It makes me realise that 99% of people literally believe everything they read in the papers.
It makes me realise that 99% of people have absolutely no critical thinking skills at all, no interest in the truth, and no grasp of their own ignorance.
It makes me wonder about working there anymore...

My family spent a week in Perugia from 5th Oct, and paid attention to what the people they spoke to there thought, because of my interest in the case. It's the same picture. Most people are wallowing in almost complete ignorance and making the same spurious and ridiculous arguments that the guilters (+ prosecution + press) have been making since day 1.

It's so depressing.

 

[charlatan]

Lumumba's release is to the credit of the "policing instincts" of Mignini and his goons? What planet is this person living on? Their "policing instincts" were the whole reason he was arrested in the first place; Amanda's (coerced) story was "convenient" precisely for them!

Mignini's blatant race-baiting was designed to play well in certain knee-jerk circles and it appears it had the desired effect. Accusing Amanda of racism is a great way to silence debate about her 'confession/accusation'. Never mind that Patrick was the last person to contact Amanda before the crime and was well known to both her and the victim. Never mind that regardless of Patrick's race, he was bound to be caught up in the investigation because the police were convinced Amanda was protecting someone. Given the sordid history of people within the white power structure inciting racial conflict to advance an agenda, I'm disappointed that some within the afrosphere are not more skeptical of this ruse.

 

[snook1]

Regardless of any other alleged evidence, Machiavelli's bottom line is that Amanda is guilty because she lied. You will find his assertions to that effect in at least 60% of his posts, in this forum and in others. Amanda was guilty of murder because she lied, and now that she is no longer guilty of murder she is still guilty of calunnia, because she lied.

Machiavelli takes great umbrage at Amanda's lies -- they offend him very deeply. He is so overwhelmed by his sense of her as a liar, that he cannot even bring himself to name the lies. His burden is heavy.

I think this post should be quoted over and over again by members here, just to make sure that:
1. Machiavelli reads it not once but multiple times
2. Machiavelli actually READS it and hopefully he will be able to think clearly, which is something, judging by his post, that he avoids.

 

[charlatan]

It's so depressing.

It's not so bad. A year ago the DNA evidence was a lock. A year ago the eyewitnesses were considered reliable. A year ago most in the media who cared to comment parroted prosecution arguments. A year ago Amanda and Raffaele were in prison! Now we can be so bold as to speak of a prosecutorial misconduct. So much has changed. Over the coming months I'm positive there will be revelations that will paint Amanda and Raffaele's tormentors in an even worse light.

 

[RoseMontague]

The first times that I was reading your posts, I understood that you started to believe the defendants were innocent after seeing the forensics picking up the bra clasp.

No, the turning point for me was definitely the Massei Report. That document is the main convincement for innocence. What I started to believe after watching the bra clasp collection video was that Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp was deliberately planted.

Then I also remember a post of yours where you explained that circumstantial evidence was not good to convict, since a set of indirect, uncertain evidence seemed to you logically like a pile of instable pieces one on top of each other.

Yes, the entire argument for guilt is a house of cards, a veritable mountain of false assumptions, cherry picked testimony, deliberate and willful ignoring of counter evidence, stuff that is just made up, and a story of police incompetence, mistreatment, and railroading.

Given these premises I didn't really have any expectation that you would change your mind in my favour on an argument that I consider logical.

When I hear a logical argument for guilt, I will let you know. Your arguments are convoluted, technical, based on a presumption of guilt, and just plain wrong.

I'm just curious, what was the argument that "rang true" to you?

The latest discussion involved Amanda's statements, the police interrogation, and the calumnia charge. I am now convinced Amanda is innocent of this charge as well. I don't believe you lie when you claim Amanda's guilt, you are simply wrong because you have been convinced of yourself that she is guilty. For Amanda, I now believe that she was convinced of Patrick's involvement by the cops, they succeeded in getting her to remember something that did not happen, her accusation was therefore neither malicious nor a lie, like you, she was simply wrong. What I now know is that unlike you, she came to this realization very quickly and she did completely retract her vague accusations.

 

[Mary_H]

One of the most risible statements I have seen lately, from this ill-informed essay:

Lumumba's release is to the credit of the "policing instincts" of Mignini and his goons? What planet is this person living on? Their "policing instincts" were the whole reason he was arrested in the first place; Amanda's (coerced) story was "convenient" precisely for them!

On the contrary, it was private citizens (most notably the famous Swiss professor) who provided Patrick with a solid alibi, on their own initiative; the police did nothing to help, except reluctantly recognize the indisputable when they were banged over the head with it.

(And no, by the way, the Carabinieri were not involved in this case. You may recall that Mignini was caught on tape with Bob Graham wishing that they had been. Instead, it was handled -- or should I say bungled -- by the Polizia di Stato.)

Risible is right. Yet another essay by someone who did not bother to learn the details of the case before opining about it.

 

[Mary_H]

Mignini's blatant race-baiting was designed to play well in certain knee-jerk circles and it appears it had the desired effect. Accusing Amanda of racism is a great way to silence debate about her 'confession/accusation'. Never mind that Patrick was the last person to contact Amanda before the crime and was well known to both her and the victim. Never mind that regardless of Patrick's race, he was bound to be caught up in the investigation because the police were convinced Amanda was protecting someone. Given the sordid history of people within the white power structure inciting racial conflict to advance an agenda, I'm disappointed that some within the afrosphere are not more skeptical of this ruse.

Thank goodness for the instincts of the Italian police. Not a racist among them.

37% of Italy Prison Population are Foreigners

NAPLES, JUNE 17 - According to data provided by the ISMU Foundation, an independent and autonomous scientific body promoting studies, research, and initiatives on multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, 37% of the prison population in Italy is made up of foreigners. The group reports that almost 22,000 foreign inmates were counted in Italy's prisons at the beginning of 2009. Of these, 6,000 are awaiting trial. Inmates making appeals and claims total 7,000, while 8,000 have been sentenced. For the Italian population, 0.7 per 1,000 individuals are in prison, while there is an eightfold increase for foreigners in Italy, with 5.5 per 1,000 individuals in prison. On January 1 2009, reports showed that the group with the most individuals in Italy's prisons are Moroccan nationals (4,700), followed by Romanians (2,700), Albanians (2,600), and Tunisians (2,500). For the Romanian population, the percentage of the population in prison is relatively low (3.5 per 1,000), while the Albanian population has a higher percentage (6.0 per 1,000), as well as Moroccans (11.8 per 1,000), and Tunisians (25 per 1,000). (ANSAmed).

 

[Mary_H]

I think this post should be quoted over and over again by members here, just to make sure that:
1. Machiavelli reads it not once but multiple times
2. Machiavelli actually READS it and hopefully he will be able to think clearly, which is something, judging by his post, that he avoids.

Thank you, snook1. Do you think Machiavelli will like it?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The latest discussion involved Amanda's statements, the police interrogation, and the calumnia charge. I am now convinced Amanda is innocent of this charge as well. I don't believe you lie when you claim Amanda's guilt, you are simply wrong because you have been convinced of yourself that she is guilty. For Amanda, I now believe that she was convinced of Patrick's involvement by the cops, they succeeded in getting her to remember something that did not happen, her accusation was therefore neither malicious nor a lie, like you, she was simply wrong. What I now know is that unlike you, she came to this realization very quickly and she did completely retract her vague accusations.

You have outdone yourself this time, Rose. Wow. Just wow.

 

[bri1]

It's not so bad. A year ago the DNA evidence was a lock. A year ago the eyewitnesses were considered reliable. A year ago most in the media who cared to comment parroted prosecution arguments. A year ago Amanda and Raffaele were in prison! Now we can be so bold as to speak of a prosecutorial misconduct. So much has changed. Over the coming months I'm positive there will be revelations that will paint Amanda and Raffaele's tormentors in an even worse light.

Thanks Charlatan.
Didn't mean to come across as unhinged
I feel desperately sorry for Amanda and Raffaelle that this is the attitude they'll have to face in the world, for probably a long time to come.
But yeah, we have to recognise how much ground has been made in a fairly short amount of time.

 

[snook1]

Thank you, snook1. Do you think Machiavelli will like it?

I should thank you, not the opposite.
I don't think he will like it, but again, does anyone really care? He, along with other guilters, seems like a person that has not got over the not guilty verdicts. It's really simple, there is no evidence. It's something we always said, now, when Hellmann said it, it's like it never happened.

Just the other day I was reading (blah) .org, and there was a discussion about Amanda's being scared to walk in public. Then, The Machine came and said her fear is nowehere near to how Meredith felt when Amanda, Raffaele and Guede attacked her. It was just creepy. Where's the evidence, I ask...There's nothing. Still, The Machine ignores it. Their whole world collapsed when acquittals were announced. They have nothing left, so they just invent stories. One after another.

As to Machiavelli's presence here - I think he's brave, not only he is the last one standing here, but he's also very vocal. It's almost like he's trying to prove something - "even though they were released, we will not surrender, we will continue "(to offend Knox and Sollecito, to stalk people supporting them, to accuse her of being bisexual-nothing wrong with that, but they're clearly obsessed- etc).

Sadly, Machiavelli is no different than his fellow guilters. The recent posts at .org and.net made by Jester, Jools, The Machine and few others, are both funny and sad. Not that we can change them, but it's just so wrong. Machiavelli is in a different league, beacuse he can actually discuss things, still, he's yet another guilter (not many of them lately) who is blind when it comes to one thing in this whole case - EVIDENCE. Just the same as the prosecution. There's nothing.

BTW, where's Pilot aka Stint?

 

[Mary_H]

I should thank you, not the opposite.
I don't think he will like it, but again, does anyone really care? He, along with other guilters, seems like a person that has not got over the not guilty verdicts. It's really simple, there is no evidence. It's something we always said, now, when Hellmann said it, it's like it never happened.

Just the other day I was reading (blah) .org, and there was a discussion about Amanda's being scared to walk in public. Then, The Machine came and said her fear is nowehere near to how Meredith felt when Amanda, Raffaele and Guede attacked her. It was just creepy. Where's the evidence, I ask...There's nothing. Still, The Machine ignores it. Their whole world collapsed when acquittals were announced. They have nothing left, so they just invent stories. One after another.

As to Machiavelli's presence here - I think he's brave, not only he is the last one standing here, but he's also very vocal. It's almost like he's trying to prove something - "even though they were released, we will not surrender, we will continue "(to offend Knox and Sollecito, to stalk people supporting them, to accuse her of being bisexual-nothing wrong with that, but they're clearly obsessed- etc).

Sadly, Machiavelli is no different than his fellow guilters. The recent posts at .org and.net made by Jester, Jools, The Machine and few others, are both funny and sad. Not that we can change them, but it's just so wrong. Machiavelli is in a different league, beacuse he can actually discuss things, still, he's yet another guilter (not many of them lately) who is blind when it comes to one thing in this whole case - EVIDENCE. Just the same as the prosecution. There's nothing.

BTW, where's Pilot aka Stint?

Pilot is taking a break from the boards; I hope it is temporary, not permanent. He wrote a very gracious note after the verdict to some of us who had become his friends here on JREF. A very classy gesture.

I would put Machiavelli in a category by himself. I think Rose has hit the nail on the head in terms of Machiavelli being convinced of guilt; there's no other way to explain his intransigence. I am not sure the same thing can be said for some of the other guilters, who strike me as being more motivated by resentment and bitterness toward the people they perceive Amanda and Raffaele to be. My opinion, only.

 

[Machiavelli]

....

The latest discussion involved Amanda's statements, the police interrogation, and the calumnia charge. I am now convinced Amanda is innocent of this charge as well. I don't believe you lie when you claim Amanda's guilt, you are simply wrong because you have been convinced of yourself that she is guilty. For Amanda, I now believe that she was convinced of Patrick's involvement by the cops, they succeeded in getting her to remember something that did not happen, her accusation was therefore neither malicious nor a lie, like you, she was simply wrong. What I now know is that unlike you, she came to this realization very quickly and she did completely retract her vague accusations.

But, I don't see a real answer to the question; what is the argument which - to you - it demonstrates she suffered of a false memory, and the argument that demonstrates she did not lie?

I anyway point out that being "wrong" on a reasoning - something which you demonstrably are on several points - is not exactly like being "wrong" on remembering that your boss and you went at home together to have fune, and after he entered your home he was sexually aroused by your roommate, so he raped and killed your roomate while you were in another room.
This is not exaclty the same kind of matter about which to be "wrong", so I am perplexed in taking your comparison. As well as other parallels among topics that you often make.
Being wrong on a belief or maintain an illogical belief is rather frequent (it seems millions can be). To falsely remember of having witnessed a murder involving people you know inside your house, is rather rare. This is a bit more serious than a memory problem; this would be a problem of the psycotic spectrum. And, a problem of this kind, needs evidence about it.

 

[RoseMontague]

But, I don't see a real answer to the question; what is the argument which - to you - it demonstrates she suffered of a false memory, and the argument that demonstrates she did not lie?

I anyway point out that being "wrong" on a reasoning - something which you demonstrably are on several points - is not exactly like being "wrong" on remembering that your boss and you went at home together to have fune, and after he entered your home he was sexually aroused by your roommate, so he raped and killed your roomate while you were in another room.
This is not exaclty the same kind of matter about which to be "wrong", so I am perplexed in taking your comparison. As well as other parallels among topics that you often make.
Being wrong on a belief or maintain an illogical belief is rather frequent (it seems millions can be). To falsely remember of having witnessed a murder involving people you know inside your house, is rather rare. This is a bit more serious than a memory problem; this would be a problem of the psycotic spectrum. And, a problem of this kind, needs evidence about it.

I agree with Rolfe on this one Machiavelli. This has been argued 6 ways from Sunday and I am convinced of and in agreement with the many other posters arguing for the false memory theory. You have my answer whether you like the answer or not. You can read again the many arguments made against your opinions or not, I have no desire to point them out once more.

 

[Matthew Best]

To falsely remember of having witnessed a murder involving people you know inside your house, is rather rare. This is a bit more serious than a memory problem; this would be a problem of the psycotic spectrum.

Once again, I ask - what is your evidence for this assertion?

 

[Matthew Best]

I expect to get no answer, just as I did last time I asked you this question.

 

[RoseMontague]

From page 6 that I posted yesterday:

Most likely they will yell at me again and tell me I am a liar and that I am trying to protect someone. But now at least I know it's not true.
.....
They lied to me when they told me they knew that I was at home because that is impossible. I WASN'T AT HOME, and therefore they can't prove it.
.....
They really think I'm involved and it's sad, because it means they still have no idea what happened. They really don't know who killed my friend. They know nothing if they want to lean on me and my testimony because I know nothing. It's so sad.

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again, I ask - what is your evidence for this assertion?

The point is self-evident.
It rests on the very definition of cognitive function disturbs and memory. A memory problem, and a problem involving experience of reality on the other side, are two different kinds of issues.
The memory about an acquaitence murderer entering your house with you and raping and murdering someone in the other room, you being present and hearing a scream so loud that you need to cover your ears, this is defined as a bizarre experience. Extremely unusual experience and intrinsically unlikely.
The experience is contradictory itself with a normal personality that works on non-contradictory perceptions of reality: if someone rapes someone else in your house, you just don't remein in the kitchen with your ears covered to deny the event while you imagine what happens, you would run out and be in the Piazza after thirty seconds, call the police immediately, you would not "forget" about this experience and not mistake it for a night at your boyfriend's house. Both consistency of self perception and consistency of reality structure are severely damaged in this memory.
There is a lot of others issues actually in Amanda's memory recollection beyond this.

It is anyway absolutely self evident that if you take medical counsuel and you explain about this issue to the specialist (I had this memory by I think it is false; or I had this experience and then I forgot it) the doctor would not consider yours as a memory problem. It is a "bizarre hallucination". This symptom may belong to a pattern of paranoid schyzophrenia if cronical; otherwise would be related to an episode involving drugs or severe chemical alteration of brain, anyway even if epsodic would be always classified an acute disease, an acute cognitive symptom involving basic functions, not as a memory problem.

Another aspect to point out is how Knox happens to "know" later on, that her memory was false. There is a severe inconsistency also on this, both on a logical line and for what concerns coroboration by clinical literature.
Knox's acknowledgement "the truth is I don't know what is the truth" makes all her subswequent statements unreliable, including a possible alibi. And it is not clear how "I don't know what is the truth" - if that is a true statement - becomes she "knows" and realizes what is the truth and becomes able to distinguish it. How it happens the lack of information "I don't know what is the truth" changes into "I know what is the truth": starting from the logical basis of a failure about her basic functions and doubt on basic perceptions, how it happens that her own memory turnes into a certainity about her perceptions as time passes. This is just against logic and against clinical observations.

And still, the issues in her statements go beyond this. Because we have to deal with logical aspects of the case, such as by coincidence how convenient it is, for a suspect, to have no memory or to have two "flexible" memories that could work in both ways. Observe how her memory about Patrick being innocent becomes progressively stronger over the days as the evidence of his alibi becomes stronger (you may compare newspaper article of the time). Note how her hand written note contains accustions against Raffaele which are purposely written: If she actually thought ha had only "fish blood" on his hands, she would not write about it into a paper to be given to the police who are investigating Raffaele for murder; if you are not sure about your memory and think it is nothing just fish blood, you don't create the danger of casting further suspicion on an innocent; while in the same Amanda's writings, several allusions are made to that Sollecito had placed some evidence against her. This kind of "memory problem" is, by coincidence, identical to the memory problems expressed in the blackmailing and threatening by a mobster of an associate suspect, in mafia investigations.
Note also that her court testimony about the moment in which she first recalled "memories" of Patrick, is flatly contradictory to previous recollections: she recalls the episode of the sms message and rising of false memory in two different stories, two incompatible narratives (actually three if you count all testimonies before judges and magistrates).
And the list may go on. And besides this, there is also the problem that we don't have only one lie by Amanda: we have a previous account of facts as a witness, which is false. And we don't have a false witness report by only one person, we also have the other suspect who is lying, has completely changed his alibi and recollection of facts; we have thus other false testimonies and a huge number of inconsistencies and falsehoods from both suspects before and after this episodes of "false memory".

 

[Machiavelli]

Pilot is taking a break from the boards; I hope it is temporary, not permanent. He wrote a very gracious note after the verdict to some of us who had become his friends here on JREF. A very classy gesture.

I would put Machiavelli in a category by himself. I think Rose has hit the nail on the head in terms of Machiavelli being convinced of guilt; there's no other way to explain his intransigence. I am not sure the same thing can be said for some of the other guilters, who strike me as being more motivated by resentment and bitterness toward the people they perceive Amanda and Raffaele to be. My opinion, only.

If you like to "classify" me, you could place me together in a group with at least to other posters: Clander and Popper. Our view of all aspects of the case and the kind of our interest in it seems to me very simlar to their.

Our similarity goest together with the fact we three are Italians who have some knowledge of the law. We seem not very interested about Amanda's personal life, sex or personal morality, sufferings or feelings and family nor in Seattle-centered issues like Marriott or Ted Simons etc. I think a difference, in my view and of other Italians and maybe other Europeans, is that not I am just limited to different view and judgement about Knox; I have also a totally different view about the context (starting from Mignini's "abuse of office", knowledge about police work, etc) and about the principles of reasoning to be applied in every step on a judicial process (about how to prove things, about witnesses, for example), and we all don't follow the media, we don't know anything about CNN, we never heard things like a "satanic" murder, or bleach recepts used as evidence, and we can read the actual documents directly.

 

[Matthew Best]

The point is self-evident.

No, it isn't.

What you're saying is that nobody who isn't psychotic can possibly have a false memory of witnessing a murder. Thus anybody who has falsely confessed to murder is, according to you, psychotic.

You may want to let us all know your medical qualifications at this point.

And can you go through the list of people who have falsely confessed to murder and let us know whether each and every single one of them is psychotic, as they must be according to you?