Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

There's a lot to be said for gut instincts, but they can never be a substitute for an objective look at the facts. When I heard about this case on the day the Massei verdict came out, my reaction was "this doesn't sound right" - which of course is a gut instinct. I had the same "gut" reaction when I heard about the Barry George conviction (the Jill Dando murder case), and the Camp Zeist verdict condemning Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.

So what did I do? Did I start shouting "they're innocent! I don't care about any evidence!" No, I took the trouble to find out about the evidence to see whether my initial reaction might have been wrong. And what did I find? There was no credible evidence to support the verdict in any of these cases, and a lot of reason (in addition to my instinctive distrust) to regard the prosecution of them as completely implausible. In the Barry George and Amanda Knox cases, of course what I knew straight off is now officially endorsed. In the Megrahi case, the establishment continues to cling to its unsupportable version of events.

It's time for the guilter brigade in the Amanda Knox case to admit to themselves that their gut instincts were wrong.

Yes, you are absolutely right. But I think whomsoever looks to PMF for any valid response or change now does so at his own risk. I will try to resolve myself to ignoring that site altogether, regardless of how bored and tempted I may get .

 

[smkovalinksy]

"Speaking of her mouth, with Chinese medicine her tongue tells us she definitely abuses alcohol and/or drugs. Kidney deficiency, swollen tongue, shiny, no coating, water retention around the tongue. It stays for a while until her body detoxifies, which may not be possible since she also appears to have digestive problems. This would be another indice of a learning disorder."

This all from a picture of Amanda with her tongue out. You seriously can't make this up.

It really is worse than I had feared. We ought to ignore them. They are not only poor logicians; they are unstable, and will get worse with time.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It really is worse than I had feared. We ought to ignore them. They are not only poor logicians; they are unstable, and will get worse with time.

I can't ignore Chinese medicine!

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't ignore Chinese medicine!

Neither can I - my astrologer specifically told me not to.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's a lot to be said for gut instincts, but they can never be a substitute for an objective look at the facts. When I heard about this case on the day the Massei verdict came out, my reaction was "this doesn't sound right" - which of course is a gut instinct. I had the same "gut" reaction when I heard about the Barry George conviction (the Jill Dando murder case), and the Camp Zeist verdict condemning Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.

So what did I do? Did I start shouting "they're innocent! I don't care about any evidence!" No, I took the trouble to find out about the evidence to see whether my initial reaction might have been wrong. And what did I find? There was no credible evidence to support the verdict in any of these cases, and a lot of reason (in addition to my instinctive distrust) to regard the prosecution of them as completely implausible. In the Barry George and Amanda Knox cases, of course what I knew straight off is now officially endorsed. In the Megrahi case, the establishment continues to cling to its unsupportable version of events.

It's time for the guilter brigade in the Amanda Knox case to admit to themselves that their gut instincts were wrong.

I'm one of them! My "gut instinct" last summer was that AK probably did it, because DNA is DNA is DNA. I didn't give it a lot of thought, but would have probably doubted the sanity of anyone who was proclaiming her innocence. I very well could have been one of those snarky posters on TJMK website who would heap invective upon someone who would go against what was "obvious" to me.

I mean, if it is obvious, I don't think of it as being obvious to me alone. I think of it as being obvious and you're an idiot for not seeing it.

Yet, here I am, 175 degrees in the other direction. I don't say 180 degrees because of other stuff I've posted. But I am 175 degrees away from guilt, and it is now "obvious" to me that, amongst other things:

- The best way to believe the Massei report is not to read it
- there was no crime-scene clean, in the sense of a clean that managed to remove forensic traces pointing to AK and RS
- the was no "faked" break in. It is simply "obvious" that RG had the ability to be in FR's window before anyone knew the difference...

I could go on.

Point is, I was part of the guilter brigade. I was not (then) a poster to these websites. Don't lump us all in to the same characterization.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I can't ignore Chinese medicine!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA profiling and its limitations

I'm one of them! My "gut instinct" last summer was that AK probably did it, because DNA is DNA is DNA. I didn't give it a lot of thought, but would have probably doubted the sanity of anyone who was proclaiming her innocence. I very well could have been one of those snarky posters on TJMK website who would heap invective upon someone who would go against what was "obvious" to me.

Bill Williams,

By now you have probably heard me say here or elsewhere that the presence of DNA on an item of evidence does not reveal when or how it got there. Low template number DNA profiling in particular is more problematic with respect to both secondary transfer and to contamination issues that ordinary DNA profiling. Moreover, DNA mixtures (and partial profiles) require interpretation, which at this point still injects subjectivity into the experiment. All of these problems do not make DNA profiling worthless; on the contrary, it is still the most objective of the forensic sciences (though arson science has improved dramatically). However, it does mean that one should avoid drawing unwarranted inferences from DNA profiling. MOO.

 

[Osterwelle]

This business of trusting one's gut over one's brain...... all well and good, but this is a murder case, a horrifying one.

Gut instincts are sometimes good in situations that require very fast reactions/desicions or when there's no reliable information to decide on.

That can also apply to a murder case (or any other crime), especially during the initial investigation when there's only little data available yet.

But in cases where there's plenty of information and a long time to think about it, there's absolutely no justification to go for gut instincts, let alone putting them above logical analysis.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Bill Williams]

But in cases where there's plenty of information and a long time to think about it, there's absolutely no justification to go for gut instincts, let alone putting them above logical analysis.

-
Osterwelle

It is my gut instinct that this is correct.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill Williams,

By now you have probably heard me say here or elsewhere that the presence of DNA on an item of evidence does not reveal when or how it got there. Low template number DNA profiling in particular is more problematic with respect to both secondary transfer and to contamination issues that ordinary DNA profiling. Moreover, DNA mixtures (and partial profiles) require interpretation, which at this point still injects subjectivity into the experiment. All of these problems do not make DNA profiling worthless; on the contrary, it is still the most objective of the forensic sciences (though arson science has improved dramatically). However, it does mean that one should avoid drawing unwarranted inferences from DNA profiling. MOO.

I think the only thing I can claim any sort of "expert" in this is in what is referred to on other sites as "statement analysis". I am by no means anything other than an arm-chair news reader when it comes to being able to tell the difference between good DNA data and bad DNA data. I am a wordsmith who knows my way around the way people use language.

Hell, the only thing I know about DNA is that the "A" stands for "Acid". So when the news tells me they have "DNA on the accused", I tend to think, "Lock 'em up."

I concede that to people in the business, they know the eddies and currents of thought, as well as the arguments over what's acceptable or not within their profession. But I cannot keep up with DNA experts who really get into it....

When my mechanic tells me my engine needs a new head gasket, short of taking it to another mechanic, who am I to argue?

 

[Osterwelle]

It really is worse than I had feared. We ought to ignore them. They are not only poor logicians; they are unstable, and will get worse with time.

No offense, but why do you bother reading there at all? Except for the several documents and translations they host, the board is as useless as a sandbox in the Sahara desert.

I mean, most of the time it's not even funny. Although I couldn't help myself and read the posts that followed the acquittal. Cinema at its most...

-
Osterwelle

 

[smkovalinksy]

No offense, but why do you bother reading there at all? Except for the several documents and translations they host, the board is as useless as a sandbox in the Sahara desert.

I mean, most of the time it's not even funny. Although I couldn't help myself and read the posts that followed the acquittal. Cinema at its most... [qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/24zhego.gif[/qimg]

-
Osterwelle

None taken. It is absolutely stupid, a waste of time, and counterproductive to read there. I must be a masochist.

 

[snook1]

Neither can I - my astrologer specifically told me not to.

Same here.

What a bunch of loosers they are.

 

[codyjuneau]

I think the only thing I can claim any sort of "expert" in this is in what is referred to on other sites as "statement analysis". I am by no means anything other than an arm-chair news reader when it comes to being able to tell the difference between good DNA data and bad DNA data. I am a wordsmith who knows my way around the way people use language.

Hell, the only thing I know about DNA is that the "A" stands for "Acid". So when the news tells me they have "DNA on the accused", I tend to think, "Lock 'em up."

I concede that to people in the business, they know the eddies and currents of thought, as well as the arguments over what's acceptable or not within their profession. But I cannot keep up with DNA experts who really get into it....

When my mechanic tells me my engine needs a new head gasket, short of taking it to another mechanic, who am I to argue?

That's an interesting analogy. Mechanics analyze the vehicle's symptoms (evidence) and then use their knowledge and experience to diagnose the fault. But mechanic's diagnoses are often incorrect. Especially so if the symptoms (evidence) are intermittent, not well defined, apply to many possible faults etc. So getting a second or third opinion is often recommended. It can save money, time, and even injury.

In this case Judge Massei simply accepted the diagnosis of the mechanic that worked for the prosecution. This despite the fact that the prosecution's mechanic obviously did not follow normally accepted procedures and was caught withholding and lying about evidence. Apathetically unfair considering what was at stake.

 

[Antony]

Bill Williams,

By now you have probably heard me say here or elsewhere that the presence of DNA on an item of evidence does not reveal when or how it got there. Low template number DNA profiling in particular is more problematic with respect to both secondary transfer and to contamination issues that ordinary DNA profiling. Moreover, DNA mixtures (and partial profiles) require interpretation, which at this point still injects subjectivity into the experiment. All of these problems do not make DNA profiling worthless; on the contrary, it is still the most objective of the forensic sciences (though arson science has improved dramatically). However, it does mean that one should avoid drawing unwarranted inferences from DNA profiling. MOO.

That's a sensible summary of how to assess the value of DNA evidence. It's depressing the number of bloggers who seem to be reasoning that because the prosecution is based on DNA, then it can't be challenged ("DNA does not lie").

 

[RandyN]

No offense, but why do you bother reading there at all? Except for the several documents and translations they host, the board is as useless as a sandbox in the Sahara desert.

I mean, most of the time it's not even funny.

Not funny and its often quite sad ...even painful... but I expect going there is like that attraction or even compulsion to gawk at a road side traffic accident. Its scary but you just have to look.

I can actually laugh and feel quite comfortable about the reasoning of the astrologist Chinese medicine person...I bet they get adjustments to the back to relieve sinus problems too.

What can explain the others though? I find myself only able to read a 1/2 page max.

For the record The Exorcist scared the crap out of me as a teen and I never watched it ever again...I get that same feeling spending too much time there...makes me all afraid of going upstairs and ...............

 

[Antony]

Gut instincts are sometimes good in situations that require very fast reactions/desicions or when there's no reliable information to decide on.

That can also apply to a murder case (or any other crime), especially during the initial investigation when there's only little data available yet.

But in cases where there's plenty of information and a long time to think about it, there's absolutely no justification to go for gut instincts, let alone putting them above logical analysis.

-
Osterwelle

Again, exactly right. I would add that it varies considerably what your gut instincts are based on. AFAICS the gut instinct saying "guilty!" is based on the highly-charged accounts of the supposed character of the accused that were going round at the time; my gut instinct saying "dodgy!" in all 3 cases was based on the plausibility of the accusations as far as I knew them, and the limited knowledge I had about the evidence presented.

I can't claim always to have had this approach: in the Broadwater Farm murder case (the "forgotten" victim was the police officer PC Blakelock), when I heard about the conviction of Winston Silcott, I remember thinking "at least it looks like they've got the right guy this time" - even though I knew about the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven cases, all of which had not been resolved at the time.

My reaction was very much based on the sort of character-defining accounts of the evidence that we have seen in this case (although not so extreme, and with more "justification"). The reports described how, when police told him (falsely) that witnesses had testified against him, Silcott allegedly replied with tears in his eyes: "you ain't got enough evidence. Those kids ... they're just kids. You can't keep me away from them." The last sentence in particular (which Silcott denies he made) was taken as a defining Silcott as a dangerous man who would threaten witnesses.

What I didn't know until much later was that this disputed statement was the only evidence presented against Silcott at his trial. There was also a picture of him standing, penguin-like with a bewildered expression on his face, at the time of his arrest, which was captioned in the press "the eyes of a killer". The other famous picture was of his wry expression when he was convicted: "Guilty - and he smiled."

Silcott was eventually cleared of the murder of PC Blakelock, but served almost 20 years for the "murder" of Anthony Nolan in a knife fight. The facts of this charge were that Nolan was one of 2 men who had attacked Silcott. After being injured in the fight, the "victim" refused medical attention and went home, but later bled to death. Silcott was on bail for this incident at the time of the Blakelock killing, but the trial took place after the Blakelock trial. In spite of it being obviously contaminated by the false conviction, the UK Criminal Cases Review Commission refused to reopen this second case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

No offense, but why do you bother reading there at all? Except for the several documents and translations they host, the board is as useless as a sandbox in the Sahara desert.

I mean, most of the time it's not even funny.

Not funny and its often quite sad ...even painful... but I expect going there is like that attraction or even compulsion to gawk at a road side traffic accident. Its scary but you just have to look.

I can actually laugh and feel quite comfortable about the reasoning of the astrologist Chinese medicine person...I bet they get adjustments to the back to relieve sinus problems too.

What can explain the others though? I find myself only able to read a 1/2 page max.

For the record The Exorcist scared the crap out of me as a teen and I never watched it ever again...I get that same feeling spending too much time there...makes me all afraid of going upstairs and ...............

Yep, that sums up the situation, alright.

 

[Mary_H]

I think the only thing I can claim any sort of "expert" in this is in what is referred to on other sites as "statement analysis". I am by no means anything other than an arm-chair news reader when it comes to being able to tell the difference between good DNA data and bad DNA data. I am a wordsmith who knows my way around the way people use language.

Hell, the only thing I know about DNA is that the "A" stands for "Acid". So when the news tells me they have "DNA on the accused", I tend to think, "Lock 'em up."

I concede that to people in the business, they know the eddies and currents of thought, as well as the arguments over what's acceptable or not within their profession. But I cannot keep up with DNA experts who really get into it....

When my mechanic tells me my engine needs a new head gasket, short of taking it to another mechanic, who am I to argue?

Just as an FYI, when we throw around the term "Statement Analysis" in this disucssion, we are usually referring to this website, written by one Peter Hyatt, a/k/a Seamus O'Riley. He earned an online degree in seeing things that aren't there. I don't think you want to say that you do what he does.

The first of his columns that caught our eyes was the analysis of Amanda's e-mail home in the days after the murder. As Seamus wrote, "note any inclusion of "shower" or "washing", "water" etc is an indication of sexual abuse." Oops! There was a lot of showering going on in those days -- proof positive of Amanda's guilt.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-email-analysis.html

If you search the earlier threads of the JREF discussion for "statement analysis," I bet you can come up with some pretty funny stuff from Rose Montague and the like.

Here is where we got started. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6311588&postcount=5486

LJ saw it on PMF and Katody linked us to the site. Some discussion ensued on JREF and on the Statement Analysis blog. halides1 made a Herculean effort to communicate with the guy (whom Rose characterized as having "read the book three times"). I got banned.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just as an FYI, when we throw around the term "Statement Analysis" in this disucssion, we are usually referring to this website, written by one Peter Hyatt, a/k/a Seamus O'Riley. He earned an online degree in seeing things that aren't there. I don't think you want to say that you do what he does.

The first of his columns that caught our eyes was the analysis of Amanda's e-mail home in the days after the murder. As Seamus wrote, "note any inclusion of "shower" or "washing", "water" etc is an indication of sexual abuse." Oops! There was a lot of showering going on in those days -- proof positive of Amanda's guilt.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-email-analysis.html

If you search the earlier threads of the JREF discussion for "statement analysis," I bet you can come up with some pretty funny stuff from Rose Montague and the like.

Here is where we got started. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6311588&postcount=5486

LJ saw it on PMF and Katody linked us to the site. Some discussion ensued on JREF and on the Statement Analysis blog. halides1 made a Herculean effort to communicate with the guy (whom Rose characterized as having "read the book three times"). I got banned.

Seems Katody summed it up on that link, that pseudoscience was the only science which could make Knox and Sollecito guilty.

I was always very suspicious of statement analysis. If you really want to feel like you are going crazy, read Andrew G Hodges' books on the JonBenet Ramsey case which utilizes his "thought print analysis". Everything a person writes, even casually, means the opposite. If someone says that they are upset at accusations, they really mean "please accuse me, I am guilty". A return to Freud, and his maddening twisting of language to mean things that were never intended.

I do not doubt that the mother was involved in that case, but the statement analysis Hodges uses is so over the top it detracts from that conclusion. One example: JonBenet asks the gardener what a year is. He says it is our going all the way around the sun. So she says, at age 6, "Then I have been around the sun 6 times?" Hodges says JonBenet saying, "I have been around"the sun 6 times means she has been sexually molested. She is speaking like a loose girl or call girl, "I've been around". See? Maddening.