Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Oh it's far worse in this particular instance. This is not a randomised group of people being surveyed. It's 200-odd self-selecting respondents. The entire premise of this poll (and nearly every newspaper phone/online poll of this type) is fundamentally and fatally flawed due to this rather obvious factor.

And out of all the meaningless newspaper online polls, this one is particularly risible. The options are quite clearly slanted against a believe that acquittals were the correct verdict (both ethically and legally). But regardless of that other blindingly obvious factor, it wouldn't have mattered if a poll of this type returned a response of 90% belief in total innocence or 90% belief in guilt: the results are meaningless rubbish and don't warrant any serious discussion here.

...

The poll is in no way less serious than our discussion here.
And it is certainly not less serious than your specific opinion.

When I see an online poll with majority of people saying a movie was bad, I know the movie will be certainly bad, and I won't spend my money to buy the ticket. Of course there are exceptions, but when there are answers, there are also reasons. To state they just don't matter anything would be stupid, a convenient rationalisation to cut off dissonance in pereception of reality (unfortunately this lunar attitude recurs in the points of LJ's argueing style).

 

[Machiavelli]

I would think your premise might be interesting if we had two groups from two different cultures/communities, given the same information, then asking them what thier perceptions are. We don't have those conditions in this case, so it really doesn't allow for any valid conclusions to be drawn.

Not valid conclusions.
But allows to put valid questions. Every rational process starts caothically with questions and doubts, not from a conclusion.
You are allowed to think about several possible reasons for why many Italians or people who answer the poll think in a certain way.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The poll is in no way less serious than our discussion here.
And it is certainly not less serious than your specific opinion.

When I see an online poll with majority of people saying a movie was bad, I know the movie will be certainly bad, and I won't spend my money to buy the ticket. Of course there are exceptions, but when there are answers, there are also reasons. To state they just don't matter anything would be stupid, a convenient rationalisation to cut off dissonance in pereception of reality (unfortunately this lunar attitude recurs in the points of LJ's argueing style).

So what can be done about Hellman? He is obviously too stupid to be a judge, or perhaps he was paid off. What can the Italian people do?

 

[Moss]

Oh, that was conveniently ignored

Not only that, I seem to recall that it was picked up and repeated as "fact" on .org or .net. And that reminds me of the "Amanda Knox dressed as burglar for Halloween party" story, which was quite clearly not the case (Knox was very evidently not dressed as a burglar), yet was picked up, amplified and repeated by those who were a) stupid and b) biased against Knox, in order for them to be able to roundly condemn Knox once again. It was a classic illustration of the stupidity and bias of certain prominent pro-guilt commentators, and was very interesting indeed to observe. Shakespeare would have been so very proud. As would Meredith........

As you already brought up the topic: I have no idea what she tried to dress as and have been wondering that for a while. Are you by chance able to explain?

 

[Grinder]

As you already brought up the topic: I have no idea what she tried to dress as and have been wondering that for a while. Are you by chance able to explain?

Amanda Knox goes as Seattel Sounder Roger Levesque

http://www.kckrs.com/the-mirror-ign...inks-her-costume-was-something-else-entirely/

 

[Caper]

I am obviously not talking about impact on the defendants.
I am talking about, how would you explain this predominant opinion. The explanation; the peoples' veiw about facts, and the reasons behind it.
Because of my background I am interested in observing different perception of things in another culture/ community. That makes me curious about the reason, because the reason might be not that obvious.

I'll save you the research.

1) She's a pretty American girl. American being the most important. Europeans have a very low opinion of Americans. So do Canadians.

2) It's easy to keep on believing in stupid, then to either admit you were wrong or face the embarressment tof your countries injustice system.

3) They're ignorants like 9/11 truters

That about sums up 90% of them

 

[Moss]

Amanda Knox goes as Seattel Sounder Roger Levesque

http://www.kckrs.com/the-mirror-ign...inks-her-costume-was-something-else-entirely/

Well, the beard looked either french or like Guy Fawkes.

 

[Antony]

Yeah me too. I just assumed they were guilty and I bet most of the other posters here did as well.

It would be interesting to have a poll of innocence supporters, to see how their views have evolved over the progress of the case. Don't know straight off what the options might be, although it might be amusing to find out what the real number of people is, whose views were fixed having received a cheque from FoAK!

For myself, I heard about the case the day before the Massei verdict came out. When it was announced as "guilty", I just thought "this doesn't sound right, but I'd like to know what the evidence was." Needless to say, I didn't read or hear anything that ever made me think the Massei verdict was sound; and ironically it was the episode of the all-night interrogation resulting in Amanda's "accusation" against Patrick Lumumba that convinced me more than anything that it was a put-up job.

 

[Caper]

It would be interesting to have a poll of innocence supporters, to see how their views have evolved over the progress of the case. Don't know straight off what the options might be, although it might be amusing to find out what the real number of people is, whose views were fixed having received a cheque from FoAK!

For myself, I heard about the case the day before the Massei verdict came out. When it was announced as "guilty", I just thought "this doesn't sound right, but I'd like to know what the evidence was." Needless to say, I didn't read or hear anything that ever made me think the Massei verdict was sound; and ironically it was the episode of the all-night interrogation resulting in Amanda's "accusation" against Patrick Lumumba that convinced me more than anything that it was a put-up job.

I wish I could find that inital Nightline report from 2007. When they were first arrested I believe. They reported it on an angle of how modern technology so foiled there plan. The text....I think the bleach recipt must have been in there.... there was no other way to come out of veiwing the story then guilty.

Does anyone know who I could get that?

 

[smkovalinksy]

It would be interesting to have a poll of innocence supporters, to see how their views have evolved over the progress of the case. Don't know straight off what the options might be, although it might be amusing to find out what the real number of people is, whose views were fixed having received a cheque from FoAK!

For myself, I heard about the case the day before the Massei verdict came out. When it was announced as "guilty", I just thought "this doesn't sound right, but I'd like to know what the evidence was." Needless to say, I didn't read or hear anything that ever made me think the Massei verdict was sound; and ironically it was the episode of the all-night interrogation resulting in Amanda's "accusation" against Patrick Lumumba that convinced me more than anything that it was a put-up job.

I think like myself, most believers in innocence began by assuming they were guilty, because of what the media reports were like (Knox was seen waiting for a store to open at 7 am, and then bought bleach; Knox and Sollecito did not phone 112 until after the arrival of the postal police; they were washing clothes in the machine; they looked embarassed and had a mop). Then , when reading that these things had been disputed, serious doubts arose. Those doubts were investigated by reading pro-innocence sites.

 

[Grinder]

I LIKE that Grinder. Great site name.

Thanks. Perhaps Stint7 could see what they think about it.

I would have had to vote "another Italian injustice" because I didn't always think they were innocent. I feel strongly that a case beyond reasonable doubt was not made but can't say I think they are guilty.

All opt in polls are of little to no value. The SS&J.com site alerted all their readers to vote in these type of polls when they found them. Even the small readership over there could impact a poll of under 200.

 

[davefoc]

For people that heard about the case just after it began to get widespread publicity it is hard to imagine how somebody would have thought they were innocent. The blood stained bathroom sink would have been enough for me. Knox came home, and before notifying anybody about the murder took a shower in that bathroom. As incredible as the narrative is that involves RS/AK guilt I'd say somebody coming home and casually taking a shower in a blood soaked bathroom is even more incredible.

That this was followed up with information that Knox had been caught on tape at a time that undermined her alibi, the so-called confession, Sollecito's bloody footprint at the crime scene, etc. would have just been icing on the cake. RS/AK were guilty and all the was left was the routine bogus rantings of some defense attorney that was hired to lie for his clients.

And then if one was just casually following the case and found out that they were found guilty what was the point of looking any further? That certainly confirmed what seemed to be the case from the information that was available. The fact is that groups promoting innocence usually spring up around famous cases so why should the pro-innocence noise around this case be any different than the pro-innocence noise that follows a lot of famous cases where the defendant was certainly guilty?

 

[Antony]

I think like myself, most believers in innocence began by assuming they were guilty, because of what the media reports were like (Knox was seen waiting for a store to open at 7 am, and then bought bleach; Knox and Sollecito did not phone 112 until after the arrival of the postal police; they were washing clothes in the machine; they looked embarassed and had a mop). Then , when reading that these things had been disputed, serious doubts arose. Those doubts were investigated by reading pro-innocence sites.

Maybe my first perceptions would have been different if I'd first heard about the case in November 2007 instead of December 2009. Even so, I know enough about past miscarriages of justice, I think, to recognise the parallels with this case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Maybe my first perceptions would have been different if I'd first heard about the case in November 2007 instead of December 2009. Even so, I know enough about past miscarriages of justice, I think, to recognise the parallels with this case.

Yes. coming later to the case would indeed make a difference. I think from the Nov 2007 initial reports, it seemed really like a case of a couple going berserk, which can and has happened, though not often. I assumed drugs had been the fueling factor.

 

[Grinder]

Jackie wrote:
Does anyone recall precisely when (and how) Knox first accused the police of hitting her?

June 2009 in court the day she was up on the stand.

Jools

More from one of ministers of misinformation. Amanda wrote about their hitting in her "gift note" later in day of her statements of Nov. 6. -

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

ETA - perhaps someone that posts there will set the record straight. Holding breath.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think like myself, most believers in innocence began by assuming they were guilty, because of what the media reports were like (Knox was seen waiting for a store to open at 7 am, and then bought bleach; Knox and Sollecito did not phone 112 until after the arrival of the postal police; they were washing clothes in the machine; they looked embarassed and had a mop). Then , when reading that these things had been disputed, serious doubts arose. Those doubts were investigated by reading pro-innocence sites.

This describes me. In the summer of 2011 I gave it my first serious look after hearing about the debunked DNA evidence. Before that I really was not into it.... just assumed guilt based on the generalized sense that if they had the DNA, then DNA is DNA is DNA.

Since then, I've been looking for a reason to retain a guilter mind. So far, every bit of minutiae is actually supportive of innocence in my way of thinking, which is more than simply establishing reasonable doubt. I think Hellman et. al. came to exactly the right conclusion on ALL counts (and this is what got me into trouble, nice trouble, but trouble nonetheless) on IIP's website.

But the evidence most definitely converges on innocence, not just not guilty.

 

[Skind]

So the second part is a redundancy that there to help the reader to understand that the point of the aswer is the belief of innocence.

Grammatically, semantically, pragmatically and logically false.

The second part modifies the first part into agreeing because you've always held them to be innocent.

It's thusly impossible to properly answer the question if your belief in innocence derives from the appeal.
It's also impossible to properly answer the poll if you believe that they are innocent AND that there was media pressure.
It's also impossible to properly answer the poll if you belive them to be innocent AND believe that it was an injustice they were convicted in the first place, if you believed in guilt at the time but now believe they were wrongfully convicted.

In short, you're making it up as you go along again.

You don't get to re-invent grammar to suit yourself.

 

[Skind]

As you already brought up the topic: I have no idea what she tried to dress as and have been wondering that for a while. Are you by chance able to explain?

Roger Levesque is a Seattle Sounders player who is famous for his 'French' facial hair. He's also seen wearing beanie hats quite often when he goes out.

Knox 'might' have had her actual Halloween costume on underneath, as it's possible she may have gone as a mime (black trouser, black and white striped top with braces) or similar.

A cat burglar outfit would require a swag-bag, mask, striped convict top and stubble.

 

[Grinder]

Well if it isn't bashing a new poster it's trying to waffle and misdirect when confronted with information that doesn't support bias.

Jackie wrote:
Does anyone recall precisely when (and how) Knox first accused the police of hitting her?
Jools wrote:
June 2009 in court the day she was up on the stand.
GreenWyvern wrote:
According to John Follain, it was immediately after her arrest. She wrote a document for the police and said, "I want to give you a present". In it she says, "... I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly." - Death in Perugia p.144
Jools
Maybe, but writing that to the same police officers who questioned her as a witness and whom according to them, she lies, it didn't happened and then never to make it an official complaint, not even her lawyers, which would be the right thing to do while instead her own defence denying the hitting took place... well I don't think it can be considered to be the first time she accused them. AFIK the "official" accusation counts as the one she made in court June 2009.

Amanda writing it doesn't count as first mention because the police she gave it to called her a liar and because her lawyers didn't lodge a complaint and Jools alleges they denied it had happened - of course they weren't there and may have feared being sued.

Jackal?

 

[davefoc]

Grammatically, semantically, pragmatically and logically false.

The second part modifies the first part into agreeing because you've always held them to be innocent.

It's thusly impossible to properly answer the question if your belief in innocence derives from the appeal.
It's also impossible to properly answer the poll if you believe that they are innocent AND that there was media pressure.
It's also impossible to properly answer the poll if you belive them to be innocent AND believe that it was an injustice they were convicted in the first place, if you believed in guilt at the time but now believe they were wrongfully convicted.

...

Very nice analysis Skind. Given the strength of evidence that was initially reported against them it would seem like a whole lot of people would fall into the I thought they were guilty but I changed my mind group and there is not a single answer in that poll that applies to that group.