Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bill Williams]

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

O gee.... here we go again.....

Rather than repeat it here... check the posts in IIP. There was a lot of back and forth, and I am pretty firm that the problem was not the first two notes - written for Amanda in Italian for her to sign. It is the fudging when there was opportunity to recant, which she eventually did.

All in all, I think Hellman got it right. Three years for the calunnia, and she was on the airplane the next morning to Seattle.

I think of her as convictable but not necessarily sentencable, and most certainly the "time served" was a good tactic by the Hellman court to get her out of Italy.

I know, I know, there's going to be replies asking how I'd do under similar circumstances. "Ok, Bill, tough guy, not so easy is it to endure that kind of interrogation is it!" Fire away.

I just think that under the circumstances, Hellman made all the right calls.

And, no, this does not give Lumumba the right to make AK-name-calling a cottage industry.

So here we go again....

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, but you don't get to change your claim once it's shown to be false.

She has relevant publications and has been demonstrated as such.

That you wish to claim that you meant a highly specific 'relevance' is not convincing.

You will provide direct quotes that indicate you were using this highly specific definition of relevance prior to halides1 list, or you will retract your dubious claim and admit that you were clearly and fundamentally in error.

...

Instead, I would say exactly what I mean to say, and explain myself as I deem fit.

I have spoken about Vecchiotti's scientific publications months ago, on other forums, long before you signed up to JREF. If I said they are not relevant, it is because it is mine and other's assessment, meaning I already checked them. I am not here to convince a petulant poster with a record of 13 previous posts. I am not going to follow your bragging lectures.

 

[Osterwelle]

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

I'd say that depends on the case. It doesn't take a genius to make the right decision if it's obviously a clear cut.
I believe there's a reason why there's so many wrongful convictions...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Machiavelli]

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!

In a succint logical explanation, flaws in methodology are not always enough to make disappear any data.

It would be against common sense. Because my question is: what do you think the result of the poll would have been, if it were made among JREF posters in this thread? Would this 11% be a likely datum to expect? And if done in West Seattle?

 

[Strawberry]

In a succint logical explanation, flaws in methodology are not always enough to make disappear any data.

It would be against common sense. Because my question is: what do you think the result of the poll would have been, if it were made among JREF posters in this thread? Would this 11% be a likely datum to expect? And if done in West Seattle?

Who cares? The results of any survey are irrelevant to guilt or innocence. Is this what the pro-guilt crowd are reduced to, a popularity contest? Fine, you won with the Italians who answered this poll.

The only majority vote that matters is the jury, and with them you lost.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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).

The "free Mumia" campaign looked to me like a PR campaign to get an obviously guilty person out of jail. The entire case for his innocence was based on outright lies from his supporters about what happened in the court case, and the actual facts all point clearly to Mumia being guilty as hell.

I think the majority of innocence campaigns stem from real miscarriages of justice, but not absolutely all of them.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Unless folk want them reprinted here - where they're guaranteed to start a broo-ha-ha - the comments I made about AK being convictable and not necessarily sentencable on the calunnia charge are on the IIP site in the following thread....

GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD, beginning Oct 7 at 4 am website time.

There were some very articulate disagreements - for the most part showing respectful disagreement.

It's all moot anyway.

 

[Machiavelli]

....
In addition, 'relevant to her post' is not relevant to the discussion. We are trying to find out if her experience is 'relevant to the V-C report', which it clearly is.

If you wish to tlak about the relevance of her experience to a unrelated issue, you may do so, but no one is under any obligation to follow your clear attempt at a strawman arguement.

ps: I don't know what you are trying to find out. But a focus of my interest on Vecchiotti is who she is, not if she has the competence to write a report. This means why she has her job at University; why and how she is related to Pascali and Tagliabracci and in what balance of force; what is her relation to Stefanoni; what are her credentials; why she was chosen; why she is not impartial.

 

[RoseMontague]

Wow, lots of discussion on that poll but nobody tried to answer the questions I left with the poll this morning. Is it real, do only 11% really believe in innocence, or are they just saying guilty for other reasons? Is it National/Local pride speaking? Is it a case of Let's Pretend?

 

[Strawberry]

The "free Mumia" campaign looked to me like a PR campaign to get an obviously guilty person out of jail. The entire case for his innocence was based on outright lies from his supporters about what happened in the court case, and the actual facts all point clearly to Mumia being guilty as hell.

I think the majority of innocence campaigns stem from real miscarriages of justice, but not absolutely all of them.

The Mumia campaign is the one exception I mentioned in my post. I don't even believe Mumia's own supporters think he's innocent, they mostly just don't think Daniel Faulkner's life is worth anything because he was a police officer. I've got no respect for Mumia supporters.

Apart from that one exception, I think "supporters campaigns" tend to be genuine in their conviction of the justice of their cause, even if they're sometimes misguided, (eg, Hanratty, who did actually turn out to be guilty).

 

[smkovalinksy]

O gee.... here we go again.....

Rather than repeat it here... check the posts in IIP. There was a lot of back and forth, and I am pretty firm that the problem was not the first two notes - written for Amanda in Italian for her to sign. It is the fudging when there was opportunity to recant, which she eventually did.

All in all, I think Hellman got it right. Three years for the calunnia, and she was on the airplane the next morning to Seattle.

I think of her as convictable but not necessarily sentencable, and most certainly the "time served" was a good tactic by the Hellman court to get her out of Italy.

I know, I know, there's going to be replies asking how I'd do under similar circumstances. "Ok, Bill, tough guy, not so easy is it to endure that kind of interrogation is it!" Fire away.

I just think that under the circumstances, Hellman made all the right calls.

And, no, this does not give Lumumba the right to make AK-name-calling a cottage industry.

So here we go again....

No, I am not going to take issue with anything you say here. I had thought Hellman had it right, too. I cannot log onto IIP because some technical problem will not allow me to (lost password, and will not let me reset). If Hellman deemed it right to uphold the calumnia charge, and chose to up the time to 3 years, then I am assuming he found good cause to do so. Odd to me, but I trust him. If she wants to appeal, then we will see what comes of that. But I for one am not going to berate you at all. I probably share your opinion for the most part, as afore stated.

 

[Grinder]

Wow, lots of discussion on that poll but nobody tried to answer the questions I left with the poll this morning. Is it real, do only 11% really believe in innocence, or are they just saying guilty for other reasons? Is it National/Local pride speaking? Is it a case of Let's Pretend?

Only 11% always believed she was innocent all along - that doesn't mean only 11% think she is innocent now.

 

[Machiavelli]

....

The only majority vote that matters is the jury, and with them you lost.

The only majority that matters to you might be that jury.

To me, certainly I will never give up and decide I have "lost" just because of a jury.

But you are shifting the topic again to a loose/win scenario, to what "matters" or not, instead I am addressing a phenomenon which is interesting for its logical implication, something to investigate for maybe further information, to question reasons for why people think in some way. Those who find the poll results interesting, are curious about the reasons behind them and may want to understand more about it. Those who already decided the reasons don't matter, are maybe not curious or annoyed, and would like to dismiss the topic and only have to think to what "matters" to them.

 

[Osterwelle]

If you search the h-index of Carla Vecchiotti you will discover this is below 1, she is irrelevant in the scientific community.

I searched via "Publish or Perish" and this is the result:

Query: Carla Vecchiotti: all
Summary: <<
Papers: 6 Cites/paper: 1.83 h-index: 2 AWCR: 1.31
Citations: 11 Cites/author: 2.75 g-index: 3 AW-index: 1.14
Years: 31 Papers/author: 1.75 hc-index: 1 AWCRpA: 0.33
Cites/year: 0.35 Authors/paper: 3.67 hI-index: 0.50 e-index: 2.45
hI,norm: 1 hm-index: 0.75
Query date: 2011-11-13

Hirsch a=2.75, m=0.06
Contemporary ac=5.00
Cites/paper 1.83/0.5/0 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 3.67/4.0/4 (mean/median/mode)

1 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
5 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
>>

Just sayin'...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Strawberry]

The only majority that matters to you might be that jury.

To me, certainly I will never give up and decide I have "lost" just because of a jury.

But you are shifting the topic again to a loose/win scenario, to what "matters" or not, instead I am addressing a phenomenon which is interesting for its logical implication, something to investigate for maybe further information, to question reasons for why people think in some way. Those who find the poll results interesting, are curious about the reasons behind them and may want to understand more about it. Those who already decided the reasons don't matter, are maybe not curious or annoyed, and would like to dismiss the topic and only have to think to what "matters" to them.

The only majority that matters in the real world is the jury, because they're the only majority which had the power to convict or free her. You can delude yourself until the cows come home, but the reality is - you lost. Your side lost, Amanda Knox is free, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Maybe time to drop it, move on, find another hobby?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Wow, lots of discussion on that poll but nobody tried to answer the questions I left with the poll this morning. Is it real, do only 11% really believe in innocence, or are they just saying guilty for other reasons? Is it National/Local pride speaking? Is it a case of Let's Pretend?

Excellent question! I once read a scholarly study of opinion polls, and it was said that they often cannot be trusted because people do not always answer honestly, but respond as they feel is expected of them.
For example, something such as , "the majority of husbands polled said the idea of adultery does not interest them" could still mean that they were all cheating, but wanted to respond nobly. Or, "the majority of Americans feel family is more important to them than work" but many nevertheless who responded may be utterly ignoring time with their families.

 

[RoseMontague]

Only 11% always believed she was innocent all along - that doesn't mean only 11% think she is innocent now.

I agree with Machiavelli on this one. Only 11% are saying they believe they are innocent, period. I don't think the responders are trying to parse it they way we have done. It is just a simple opinion poll. Are they giving an honest answer is my question?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I agree with Machiavelli on this one. Only 11% are saying they believe they are innocent, period. I don't think the responders are trying to parse it they way we have done. It is just a simple opinion poll. Are they giving an honest answer is my question?

As stated in my post above, I think you can bank on a lot of dishonesty.

 

[RoseMontague]

Excellent question! I once read a scholarly study of opinion polls, and it was said that they often cannot be trusted because people do not always answer honestly, but respond as they feel is expected of them.
For example, something such as , "the majority of husbands polled said the idea of adultery does not interest them" could still mean that they were all cheating, but wanted to respond nobly. Or, "the majority of Americans feel family is more important to them than work" but many nevertheless who responded may be utterly ignoring time with their families.

Thanks. I have a feeling this verdict was taken as a personal affront to their pride. That one quote from the other article I linked was also interesting, the one that said we even believe in Stefi. Not sure if that is an accurate translation, but I thought it was amusing.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow, lots of discussion on that poll but nobody tried to answer the questions I left with the poll this morning. Is it real, do only 11% really believe in innocence, or are they just saying guilty for other reasons? Is it National/Local pride speaking? Is it a case of Let's Pretend?

It is impossible to read human brains so I guess would be impossible to discover what people actually believe. People say they are religious and believe in God, but they do? We can't know, we can only take what they declare.

I would rule out National/Local pride as a reason, since to me it is illogical: if one believes in innocence, there would be no need to pretend in order to feed national/local pride, there would be an equal opportunity to feed his/her pride by agreeing with Hellmann's court, saying like "I am proud of Hellman", asserting that justice triumphed, that the system is careful and fair etc.

While if one assertd that Hellmann's decision is the "umpeteenth case of justice malfunction", or that the media expecially foreign noe plaid a role in the decision, or if shouts in the street that he is ashamed of the acquittal, this would not be an orthodox way of expressing national pride.