Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[raz0rama]

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.

Welcome Bill, I've enjoyed reading your posts on IIP. There's a ton of good stuff here in all the continuations, one of the most exhaustive debates I've ever read.

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

Well stated, and welcome to the forum!

 

[Fine]

More entertainment. In this Italian opinion poll of 6,130 university students---conducted before Hellman's acquittal of the lovebirds--- only 21% of the males thought Amanda was guilty. The females were much more skeptical of Amanda's innocence. See: HERE.

///

 

[smkovalinksy]

More entertainment. In this Italian opinion poll of 6,130 university students---conducted before Hellman's acquittal of the lovebirds--- only 21% of the males thought Amanda was guilty. The females were much more skeptical of Amanda's innocence. See: HERE.

///

Interesting. Females seem to be harsher judges of other females, which was why I feared that the mostly female lay judges would uphold the convictions. Did not pan out, though. Thanks for that link!

 

[charlatan]

However there is no point in no interest about how professional the poll is: the interesting value is the extremely low number of people expressing agreement. This is the interesting datum, it'ts pointless to dribble around it: this is the information useful to you if you are interested in understanding, in thinking about the reasons.

In other words, serious flaws in methodology are fine as long as we get the answers we're looking for. What a succinct characterization of the pro-guilt mindset!

 

[Antony]

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?

Is that a fact? My impression is that when "innocence campaigns" spring up it's usually because the subjects of the campaigns are innocent.

Look at it this way: the judicial establishment is the side that is able to make the decisions that matter and control the information that becomes public. So if someone goes against that then it's likely that they have a good reason. Of course you can't assume that they're right any more than you can assume that the establishment is right, so to make a judgement you have to look at the innocence case on its merits. Asking "why is it different to the other pro-innocence noise?" isn't looking at it on its merits.

 

[Osterwelle]

More entertainment. In this Italian opinion poll of 6,130 university students---conducted before Hellman's acquittal of the lovebirds--- only 21% of the males thought Amanda was guilty. The females were much more skeptical of Amanda's innocence. See: HERE.

///

The male pro-guilt quota is probably so low because Amanda is a twee little looker which triggers the "damsel in distress" code in a lot of men.
I've read Amanda's got a heapload of "Marry me!" letters when she was in prison, so I guess there might be something to that theory.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Osterwelle]

Interesting. Females seem to be harsher judges of other females, which was why I feared that the mostly female lay judges would uphold the convictions. Did not pan out, though. Thanks for that link!

I don't think the gender matters very much. Some people (I'd even say most) are simply uneligible to be a judge because they lack some of the basic attributes that would allow them to render a true judgement.

Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially. -Sokrates

-
Osterwelle

 

[Draca]

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.

The IIP Forum has treated you just wretchedly. I feel really sorry for you and all they put you through. Glad you have survived your ordeal intact.

 

[davefoc]

Is that a fact? My impression is that when "innocence campaigns" spring up it's usually because the subjects of the campaigns are innocent.

Look at it this way: the judicial establishment is the side that is able to make the decisions that matter and control the information that becomes public. So if someone goes against that then it's likely that they have a good reason. Of course you can't assume that they're right any more than you can assume that the establishment is right, so to make a judgement you have to look at the innocence case on its merits. Asking "why is it different to the other pro-innocence noise?" isn't looking at it on its merits.

I've thought about this a bit after your post. There are certainly pro innocence groups that spring up around famous cases where it is very likely that the person convicted is guilty. The Bobby Kennedy and the Martin Luther King assassinations come to mind. There are often pro-innocence groups around death penalty cases where people opposed to the death penalty are willing to distort the truth if it can help prevent the death penalty from being implemented. The Mumia case seems like a good example of that.

But if you limit the claim to: pro-innocence groups that arise in famous criminal cases where neither the victim nor the alleged perpetrator are famous and the death penalty is not involved the existence of a pro-innocence group might be a sign of actual innocence, you might be right. The cases I could think of that met that criteria were examples of cases where I thought the defendant might actually be innocent. But I think my sample size is too small to draw a very good conclusion on this. I'll just concede (because the facts seem to support you) that you're probably right on this.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The IIP Forum has treated you just wretchedly. I feel really sorry for you and all they put you through. Glad you have survived your ordeal intact.

I am surprised at this. Why would this be the case?

 

[Strawberry]

Is that a fact? My impression is that when "innocence campaigns" spring up it's usually because the subjects of the campaigns are innocent.

Look at it this way: the judicial establishment is the side that is able to make the decisions that matter and control the information that becomes public. So if someone goes against that then it's likely that they have a good reason. Of course you can't assume that they're right any more than you can assume that the establishment is right, so to make a judgement you have to look at the innocence case on its merits. Asking "why is it different to the other pro-innocence noise?" isn't looking at it on its merits.

I totally agree. Leaving aside defendants who were already famous before they were accused of a crime who get support off diehard fans, eg Michael Jackson, I can only think of one "innocence" campaign where the defendant is clearly guilty. Apart from that one exception, innocence campaigns always centre round people who are either clearly innocent, (the Guildford Four), or at the very least, where there was enough dodginess about the original case that you can see why people would think they were innocent, (James Hanratty).

 

[Grinder]

I am surprised at this. Why would this be the case?

Because he believe ALL of the verdict was correct including the false accusation.

I do find it difficult to believe she should be convicted for it and believe that the police clearly did all they could to get her to say Patrick was the killer.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Because he believe ALL of the verdict was correct including the false accusation.

I do find it difficult to believe she should be convicted for it and believe that the police clearly did all they could to get her to say Patrick was the killer.

Right, it does seem odd. What do you think Hellman's reasoning about this charge will be?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I don't think the gender matters very much. Some people (I'd even say most) are simply uneligible to be a judge because they lack some of the basic attributes that would allow them to render a true judgement.

Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially. -Sokrates

-
Osterwelle

So in general, juries cannot be trusted, most of the time, by this Socratic logic.....

 

[Bill Williams]

The IIP Forum has treated you just wretchedly. I feel really sorry for you and all they put you through. Glad you have survived your ordeal intact.

Who said I emerged from the ordeal intact?

The thing I like about the IIP site is that there is difference of opinion, but those differences will be challenged - mostly respectfully. Good give and take. I am in the minority in some views, but not the main ones.

 

[Swimfish]

The scant 11% believing in innocence from the beginning is of course the salient point for me.

I mention that with no gloating, and only a small sense of satisfaction.
This, because such statistical endeavors have obvious shortcomings.

From our resident sarcasm expert we have the mixing of "statistical endeavor" and "shortcomings" with a completely non-statistical internet beauty contest. For the record, I voted twice for injustice and only once for innocent from the beginning. So what was my "statistical" belief pattern?

How many times did you vote for guilty? Did it make you feel better, knowing that some people much like yourself would rely on and discuss the your vote(s)?

By the way, how are you doing on the Jonathan Swift book? You must have finished it by now?

 

[Strawberry]

Who cares how many people believe her to be guilty anyway? That's argumentum ad populum, which is a load of crap.

The only majority opinion which counts is that of a jury who sat through all the evidence presented under oath and under the supervision of an impartial judge. We've heard their verdict, the populist vote means no more than a hair on a wart on the left testicle of a fly.

 

[Osterwelle]

Because he believe ALL of the verdict was correct including the false accusation.

I do find it difficult to believe she should be convicted for it and believe that the police clearly did all they could to get her to say Patrick was the killer.

My opinion is the involved police officers should be convicted for coercion, abuse of office, personal injury, false statement and the wrongful imprisonment of Patrick Lumumba based on a coerced and vague false confession.
They shouldn't be allowed to ever wear a police uniform again and some clearly deserve to be put behind bars as well.

Too bad they can't be tried for incompetence...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Machiavelli]

Grammatically, semantically, pragmatically and logically false.

...

Skind, it's a news online poll. It is not meant to be logical. It's meant to be distinguished in less than five seconds by an average reader. This is why it is loaded with slogans.