ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old Yesterday, 07:10 AM   #2881
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 149
9.4.1 in M/B and how to evaluate it.

Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:55 AM   #2882
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,892
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post


You must not eat much Mexican food! Having grown up largely in S. California, I love Tex-Mex and I always order picadillo in my tacos and enchiladas.
Obviously not that much. This is what happens when you're from Iowa, My mom made pot roasts, catfish, fish, rabbit and almost no foreign foods except a few Norwegian/Swedish dishes

After we moved from Iowa we might have something exotic like salmon. But that is because my dad liked to fish and that's the kind of fish you find in the NW.

I don't think i knew what a jalapeno was until I was in my late 20s.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:03 AM   #2883
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,892
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
I'm convinced that what it says is that there is proof that Amanda was in the cottage.
And there is. But so what? Her presence in the cottage is not in dispute. Only the time when she was there. DNA evidence does not include a time stamp.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:20 AM   #2884
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,948
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't call me dishonest. You're the dishonest one because if you look at the attachment it clearly gives the date, time and fares. You won't get a last minute budget fare unless you are lucky. Dishonest because you searched for 'tomorrow' and days in advance. I looked up 'next'.

Are you really expecting us to believe Knox and co are going to be perusing budget airlines in the early hours? Fact is, she went via Heathrow.
Nope. I did exactly that and your numbers are rubbish. Want me to do it again? Will you simply ignore it again?

ETA: Right now (21-09-2019 16:32) I can book a BA flight for €1500 to €3600 on 22-09-2019.

So why, Vixen, are you plainly lying?

ETA2: As I watch it has risen to €1700 to €3800. That is how fast the web updates.

ETA3: The imputation that I was lying the first time this example was wheeled out was false. I did not seek a price "days in advance". It was a next day price. Vixen appears to not understand that if I re-run the exercise in a few hours the prices will be entirely different. Vixen appears to not understand that the prices move in real time.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; Yesterday at 08:36 AM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:35 AM   #2885
NotEvenWrong
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 842
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. I did exactly that and your numbers are rubbish. Want me to do it again? Will you simply ignore it again?
Honest question -- are there mental disorders where people lie and do not even realize they lie? I've met a handful of people like this, and I always assumed they knew they were lying and just covering it up with more lies. But there are... extreme cases apparently, and I'm wondering if there are conditions where the person does not even consciously realize it?
NotEvenWrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:19 AM   #2886
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,247
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
It is clear that in the overall context of M/B, that court is assessing the guilt-case, as found by Nencini, as a hypothesis. Why? Because even if true, that hypothesis still does not put Knox in the murder room, but in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Earlier in M/B, the court outright refers to the prosecution case as based on "allegations".

The key though, is that if it was as Harry Rag pounds on about, it would be more than him pounding on about it. Noticeably missing is **any** reputable Italian legal source.

Stefano Maffei **is** a reputable Italian legal source, but his (lone) criticism of M/B is that the accumulated width of circumstantial evidence can make up for no depth of that same accumulation. So it was Maffei agreed with the 2013 Cassation overturning of the Hellmann acquittal, on the grounds of what they saw as the sheer width, not weight, of factoid evidence.

AFAIK not even Maffei, though, has taken issue with the eventual Cassazione acquittal, one based on not necessarily dismissing the facts as Nencini had seen them, but based on "even if true, still does not put Knox (or Sollecito)," at the right place at the right time.

Rag can argue 9.4.1 all he wants. But to make it say what he wants it to say ignores the rest of the report.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:23 AM   #2887
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,247
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm convinced that what it says is that there is proof that Amanda was in the cottage.
And there is. But so what? Her presence in the cottage is not in dispute. Only the time when she was there. DNA evidence does not include a time stamp.
Exactly. Ironically in 2010 Judge Massei ruled out the forensic relevance of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips, on the grounds that she'd been sexually active and a DNA i.d. would not come with a time stamp.

But suddenly, turn that around and find Knox's DNA in her own bathroom, one that she'd shared for weeks with the victim, and that time stamp appears out of nowhere.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:37 AM   #2888
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,814
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Exactly. Ironically in 2010 Judge Massei ruled out the forensic relevance of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips, on the grounds that she'd been sexually active and a DNA i.d. would not come with a time stamp.

But suddenly, turn that around and find Knox's DNA in her own bathroom, one that she'd shared for weeks with the victim, and that time stamp appears out of nowhere.
If that stain was determined to be Guede's semen, I wonder how Massei would have explained its presence? I still find it unbelievable that a suspected semen stain between the legs of the victim was not seen as a potential primary piece of evidence in a rape/ murder.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:00 AM   #2889
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,814
Originally Posted by NotEvenWrong View Post
Honest question -- are there mental disorders where people lie and do not even realize they lie? I've met a handful of people like this, and I always assumed they knew they were lying and just covering it up with more lies. But there are... extreme cases apparently, and I'm wondering if there are conditions where the person does not even consciously realize it?
According to the article below, compulsive or pathological liars know they are lying. A person who does not know they are lying is divorced from reality (psychotic) and actually believes what they are saying.

Habitual liars often have co-morbid conditions with narcissistic personality disorder being one of them. Donald Trump is an example of this.



https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psy...mpulsive-lying
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM   #2890
whoanellie
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
The belief that a court has ruled that AK was present at the cottage during the murder of MK exists solely to allow guilters to sleep at night soothed by the notion that they've been proven right about something, anything. This "judicial fact" is the opiate of the guilters. It's not worth arguing about.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:43 PM   #2891
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,892
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
The belief that a court has ruled that AK was present at the cottage during the murder of MK exists solely to allow guilters to sleep at night soothed by the notion that they've been proven right about something, anything. This "judicial fact" is the opiate of the guilters. It's not worth arguing about.
The motivation isn't specific about the time. And just like I believe it was in Amanda's letter, she says "she was there". But if you read the entire letter, her intent wasn't to say she was present during the murder.

But 'soldiers' are looking for any ammunition they believe might help in their battle.

But you can delete a word or a punctuation mark in a sentence or the sentences position in a paragraph or article and change its entire meaning. And sometimes a paragraph in an article is just not clear.

The FACT is the judgement cleared Amanda and Raffaele. Do we really think they would have done that if they also determined Amanda was present during the murder? Maybe just maybe, those reading the judgment are under a misapprehension.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:54 PM   #2892
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,814
Just for giggles, I had a look at TJMK's Front Page. The current offering is an attack on Malcolm Gladwell's book Talking to Strangers by The Machine who is attempting to expose Gladwell's 'lies'. First up: mixed blood. Yep, you read that right. MIXED BLOOD with Amanda having "copious blood loss". Hoo boy. Does TM bother to mention that not a single court called it 'mixed blood' because it's forensically impossible to determine her blood from her DNA? Nah. As evidence, he trots out Garofano, the lone 'go to' expert on this for the PGP with whom not a single forensic expert agrees. You would assume that the fact that no other expert agrees with Garofano might be a clue for TM and other PGP. But no.
Quote:
He confirmed that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room in “Darkness Descending” by himself and Paul Russell.
Does TM bother to include the fact that no trace of blood was found in Filomena's room as confirmed by negative TMB test? Nah.

I could go on but you get the idea. TM is just trotting out more disproved/unproved nonsense. I have to wonder why TM feels the need to spend so much time just repeating the same nonsense to his tiny, tiny audience? No one is looking to decide on AK's and RS's guilt or innocence anymore. People have already made up their minds or just don't care. So why all the time and effort? The miniscule TJMK diehards are just not relevant anymore but they don't quite seem to kemo sabe that.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM   #2893
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,892
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Just for giggles, I had a look at TJMK's Front Page. The current offering is an attack on Malcolm Gladwell's book Talking to Strangers by The Machine who is attempting to expose Gladwell's 'lies'. First up: mixed blood. Yep, you read that right. MIXED BLOOD with Amanda having "copious blood loss". Hoo boy. Does TM bother to mention that not a single court called it 'mixed blood' because it's forensically impossible to determine her blood from her DNA? Nah. As evidence, he trots out Garofano, the lone 'go to' expert on this for the PGP with whom not a single forensic expert agrees. You would assume that the fact that no other expert agrees with Garofano might be a clue for TM and other PGP. But no.


Does TM bother to include the fact that no trace of blood was found in Filomena's room as confirmed by negative TMB test? Nah.

I could go on but you get the idea. TM is just trotting out more disproved/unproved nonsense. I have to wonder why TM feels the need to spend so much time just repeating the same nonsense to his tiny, tiny audience? No one is looking to decide on AK's and RS's guilt or innocence anymore. People have already made up their minds or just don't care. So why all the time and effort? The miniscule TJMK diehards are just not relevant anymore but they don't quite seem to kemo sabe that.
Have you read Gladwell's book? I've seen him on his press tour talking about the book. Apparently the book is mostly about how people think they can read others by body language and expressions and while sometimes they can it's not dependable. He talks about how some people match their emotions and expressions and others do not. It includes a chapter on Amanda Knox.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; Yesterday at 02:19 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #2894
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,814
I have only seen him interviewed. Yes, he uses Amanda as an example of how the Italians assumed she should have reacted according to their own cultural expectations. When she did not, they interpreted it as a sign of guilt. This is from a review of his book:
Quote:
Another teachable story here is that of Amanda Knox, the American student in Perugia who was imprisoned for murder (and later acquitted) because her behaviour after the crime seemed extremely odd. Gladwell assures us that weird behaviour is not reliable evidence of guilt. There is a psychological phenomenon called “the illusion of asymmetric insight”: we consider ourselves opaque to others, while thinking that other people are easy to read correctly. “If I can convince you of one thing in this book,” he announces dramatically, “let it be this: Strangers are not easy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dPXnqF2IfsBPQA
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM   #2895
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,892
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have only seen him interviewed. Yes, he uses Amanda as an example of how the Italians assumed she should have reacted according to their own cultural expectations. When she did not, they interpreted it as a sign of guilt. This is from a review of his book:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dPXnqF2IfsBPQA
Makes sense. I was just now watching a YouTube video where he talks in detail about the book. It's pretty interesting.

https://youtu.be/Is8_0cJx82w
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:45 PM   #2896
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,025
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have only seen him interviewed. Yes, he uses Amanda as an example of how the Italians assumed she should have reacted according to their own cultural expectations. When she did not, they interpreted it as a sign of guilt. This is from a review of his book:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dPXnqF2IfsBPQA


While differences in cultural "expectations" might well have played a part vis-a-vis Knox in Perugia, I think the absolutely critical point here is this: things like intuition, profiling, phone tapping and so on can sometimes (maybe even often) be of real use in directing investigors towards specific individuals*.

BUT

That's all they can be. Of use in narrowing down the pool of potential suspects, and thus enabling investigators to focus their resources in a more optimal way.

What cannot and should not happen is that these kinds of "pointer" methods get magnified to being considered as evidence of guilt in and of themselves. Rather, it's then the job of investigators to go out and obtain real, hard, reliable, credible evidence. And it's only this actual evidence which should form the basis of any charging decision (and subsequent trial, if the decision is to charge).

I believe that the investigators in the Kercher murder case used methods that were probably deeply embedded in their overall approach and philosophy (and methods that, incidentally, were/are one of the very worst aspects of any inquisitorial criminal justice system). I believe that they were very well used to employing the following methodology:

1) Think of a wide selection of people who have potential links to the victim or the crime;

2) Examine each of those people in more detail. Are they unable to provide a provable alibi? Do they have potential motive? Do they have potential opportunity? Do they have potential means? Is their behaviour in front of investigators (or in phone taps) "strange" in some way?

3) If there are any people from the initial long list for whom the answer to all of the above questions is "yes", then it's probably they who committed the crime.

4) Now starts the task of finding the evidence to support the thesis that the persons(s) in (3) above did indeed commit the crime - this is where confirmation bias and tunnel vision on the part of the investigators can become a huge problem (as in the Knox/Sollecito investigation);

5) In conjunction with (4) above, the person(s) in question get brought in for interrogation, with the aim of extracting a useable (in court) confession. If they can manage to do this, it's solid gold (since the Italian courts historically treat all confessions as automatically reliable and credible....);

6) Once they have a confession, and a few pieces of supporting evidence (which, remember, may very well be the product of misinterpretation due to tunnel vision and/or confirmation bias), conviction is almost a formality.


And now, here's the thing: very often (in fact, probably almost always), this approach ends up with the investigators identifying the correct culprit, and the courts correctly convicting them. If, for example, a house is burgled, and the police recognise the MO as that of a recidivist burglar in their town, and the burglar cannot account for his movement around the time of the crime, and the burglar is nervous and evasive when police go round to talk with him.... well then, it's a pretty fair chance that this is the culprit. They may get the man to confess in a subsequent interrogation, and they may very well subsequently find corroborating physical evidence or witness testimony. And that evidence may well be enough, in totality, to see the man correctly convicted of the crime. And the investigators can slap themselves on the back for a) a job well done (the true culprit has been convicted and sentenced) and b) a vindication of their operating methods.



What appears to me to have happened in the Knox/Sollecito investigation is that they got to step (3) in my list above, and decided that:

a) Knox had to have been involved in some material way in the murder (though I think it's very clear that at that stage, they believed Knox had enabled (and subsequently covered up for) the actual murderer, rather than having directly participated in the attack herself);

b) by direct extension, Sollecito had to have, at the very least, lied to them about Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, and might also have had some sort of involvement in the murder itself;

c) therefore, both Knox and Sollecito had to have committed one or more serious criminal offences; and

d) Knox (and maybe also Sollecito) had to be able to tell them the identity of the man who had actually attacked and stabbed Kercher.


At that point, I think they crossed the Rubicon: they decided that their deductions were correct, and they set out to "prove" their deductions - first via forced confessions, and then via the (as they thought) inevitable physical evidence and witness testimony.

And the rest is (a very sorry) history........



* In the same way as, say, it's objectively more reasonable for security officials at airports to single out for enhanced searching a young man of Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity who's looking nervous and travelling alone.... as opposed to, say, a caucasian woman in her 50s who's travelling with her daughter and her daughter's two young children
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:08 PM   #2897
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have only seen him interviewed. Yes, he uses Amanda as an example of how the Italians assumed she should have reacted according to their own cultural expectations. When she did not, they interpreted it as a sign of guilt. This is from a review of his book:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...dPXnqF2IfsBPQA
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
While differences in cultural "expectations" might well have played a part vis-a-vis Knox in Perugia, I think the absolutely critical point here is this: things like intuition, profiling, phone tapping and so on can sometimes (maybe even often) be of real use in directing investigors towards specific individuals*.

BUT

That's all they can be. Of use in narrowing down the pool of potential suspects, and thus enabling investigators to focus their resources in a more optimal way.

What cannot and should not happen is that these kinds of "pointer" methods get magnified to being considered as evidence of guilt in and of themselves. Rather, it's then the job of investigators to go out and obtain real, hard, reliable, credible evidence. And it's only this actual evidence which should form the basis of any charging decision (and subsequent trial, if the decision is to charge).

I believe that the investigators in the Kercher murder case used methods that were probably deeply embedded in their overall approach and philosophy (and methods that, incidentally, were/are one of the very worst aspects of any inquisitorial criminal justice system). I believe that they were very well used to employing the following methodology:

1) Think of a wide selection of people who have potential links to the victim or the crime;

2) Examine each of those people in more detail. Are they unable to provide a provable alibi? Do they have potential motive? Do they have potential opportunity? Do they have potential means? Is their behaviour in front of investigators (or in phone taps) "strange" in some way?

3) If there are any people from the initial long list for whom the answer to all of the above questions is "yes", then it's probably they who committed the crime.

4) Now starts the task of finding the evidence to support the thesis that the persons(s) in (3) above did indeed commit the crime - this is where confirmation bias and tunnel vision on the part of the investigators can become a huge problem (as in the Knox/Sollecito investigation);

5) In conjunction with (4) above, the person(s) in question get brought in for interrogation, with the aim of extracting a useable (in court) confession. If they can manage to do this, it's solid gold (since the Italian courts historically treat all confessions as automatically reliable and credible....);

6) Once they have a confession, and a few pieces of supporting evidence (which, remember, may very well be the product of misinterpretation due to tunnel vision and/or confirmation bias), conviction is almost a formality.


And now, here's the thing: very often (in fact, probably almost always), this approach ends up with the investigators identifying the correct culprit, and the courts correctly convicting them. If, for example, a house is burgled, and the police recognise the MO as that of a recidivist burglar in their town, and the burglar cannot account for his movement around the time of the crime, and the burglar is nervous and evasive when police go round to talk with him.... well then, it's a pretty fair chance that this is the culprit. They may get the man to confess in a subsequent interrogation, and they may very well subsequently find corroborating physical evidence or witness testimony. And that evidence may well be enough, in totality, to see the man correctly convicted of the crime. And the investigators can slap themselves on the back for a) a job well done (the true culprit has been convicted and sentenced) and b) a vindication of their operating methods.



What appears to me to have happened in the Knox/Sollecito investigation is that they got to step (3) in my list above, and decided that:

a) Knox had to have been involved in some material way in the murder (though I think it's very clear that at that stage, they believed Knox had enabled (and subsequently covered up for) the actual murderer, rather than having directly participated in the attack herself);

b) by direct extension, Sollecito had to have, at the very least, lied to them about Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder, and might also have had some sort of involvement in the murder itself;

c) therefore, both Knox and Sollecito had to have committed one or more serious criminal offences; and

d) Knox (and maybe also Sollecito) had to be able to tell them the identity of the man who had actually attacked and stabbed Kercher.


At that point, I think they crossed the Rubicon: they decided that their deductions were correct, and they set out to "prove" their deductions - first via forced confessions, and then via the (as they thought) inevitable physical evidence and witness testimony.

And the rest is (a very sorry) history........



* In the same way as, say, it's objectively more reasonable for security officials at airports to single out for enhanced searching a young man of Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity who's looking nervous and travelling alone.... as opposed to, say, a caucasian woman in her 50s who's travelling with her daughter and her daughter's two young children
Comments:

1. The Guardian review of Gladwell's book is interesting, and to me seems to suggest that not reading that book, despite its attempt to shed light on the cultural-behavioral background of the Knox - Sollecito case, is a good use of one's time.

2. I find LondonJohn's analysis to have some good points. What that analysis is missing includes:

a) the unholy hurry the police and prosecutor were in to "solve" the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher (most likely the result of perceived pressure from the media and political superiors), leading to

b) the willful abandonment by the police and prosecutor of relatively time-consuming investigative and analytical methods (some examples include: no search for the murder weapon - a bloody knife - along the route from the cottage to the garden where the phones were abandoned; no evaluation of the glass shard evidence, including the shard impaled in the window's wooden frame; apparently no investigation of the presumed semen stain on the pillow found under Kercher's body; the failure to obtain, under court order if necessary, the DNA profiles of all the cottage inhabitants and legitimate visitors for reference), and

c) the dishonest and amoral focus on Knox and Sollecito as convenient suspects - convenient suspects because among Kercher's acquaintances, they were vulnerable because each was the other's alibi witness - before the DNA profile forensics from the rape kit and murder room were - in the ideal case, not present in Stefanoni's lab - honestly and competently analyzed and compared to DNA profile references.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:40 PM   #2898
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
I believe that the "acclaimed" in "acclaimed fact" is a misleading translation.

The Italian text of the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report, Section 9.4.1, reads:

"9.4.1 Tanto premesso, si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitamione, teatro dell'omicidio, dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro."

The Italian word "conclamato" in the context of the MR means "overt", "established", "acknowledged", or "proclaimed", not "acclaimed".

It should also be noted that the Italian text states "dato ... nel processo" meaning "a given ... of the trial proceedings" or "a fact ... of the trial proceedings", apparently emphasizing that it may not be a "proven" fact of reality, although as the MR states, supported by Knox's interrogation statement.

Here's a Google translation with the help of Collins Reverso and me:

"9.4.1 In view of this {definitive absence of any evidence that Knox or Sollecito were in Kercher's bedroom, the scene of the rape/murder, as discussed in Section 9.4}, it is now noted, as regards the position of Amanda Knox, whose presence in the cottage, the scene of the murder, is an overt given [fact] of the [Nencini appeal court trial] proceedings, according to her own admissions, also contained in the memorial she signed, in the part in which she reports that, being in the kitchen, after the young English woman and another person had retired to Kercher's room for sex, she had heard a harrowing scream from her friend, to the piercing and unbearable point that she slid down, crouched [squatted] on the floor, holding her hands tightly over her ears so as to hear no more of it."

The memorial referred to in the MR is neither of the statements that Knox wrote out in English after the interrogation, but one of the statements in Italian generated during the interrogation in which she was not provided with a lawyer nor with a fair interpreter. She disavowed those interrogation statements and claimed that they were the result of coercion.

In interpreting the validity of the alleged supporting evidence, it is critical to recall that Knox disavowed her interrogation statements and that, in accordance with a final judgment of an international human rights court (the ECHR), those statements were obtained in violation of her defense rights. Thus, they cannot be used to lawfully convict her of any crime, whether it is calunnia or murder/rape.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:54 PM   #2899
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,814
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
>snip>
a) Knox had to have been involved in some material way in the murder (though I think it's very clear that at that stage, they believed Knox had enabled (and subsequently covered up for) the actual murderer, rather than having directly participated in the attack herself);

>snip<
But the infamous animated video of the prosecution's theory shown in court had Knox herself wielding the kitchen knife.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:43 AM   #2900
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,025
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
But the infamous animated video of the prosecution's theory shown in court had Knox herself wielding the kitchen knife.


Oh yes, but the "evolution" of the prosecution narrative only happened later (i.e. through 2008). That's why I wrote "at that stage" - i.e. in early/mid November 2007.

The whole tenor of the police interrogation of Knox on 5/6 November 2007 was that she'd arranged to meet up with another (male) person that night, and had taken him to the cottage, whereupon that other person had attacked and murdered Kercher. This narrative supposed that Knox had been present within the cottage while the murder took place (remember the "cowering in the kitchen covering her ears with her hands to muffle Kercher's screams" stuff.....?), but that she had not participated in the murder act itself.

And it was only later, once the police/PM had swapped Lumumba for Guede, and once they (thought they) had (bogus) physical evidence of Knox holding a knife that also had Kercher's DNA upon it, that the narrative changed to one in which Knox actually wielded a knife against Kercher (though of course this then also also necessitated the invention of the ludicrous "more than one knife plunging into Kercher's throat" scenario, since "Knox's murder knife" simply could not have inflicted all of the throat wounds - although the thinner smaller blade whose impression in blood was left on Kercher's bedsheet....could have inflicted all those wounds.....).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:59 AM   #2901
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,025
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I believe that the "acclaimed" in "acclaimed fact" is a misleading translation.

The Italian text of the Marasca CSC panel Motivation Report, Section 9.4.1, reads:

"9.4.1 Tanto premesso, si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitamione, teatro dell'omicidio, dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che, trovandosi in cucina, dopo che la giovane inglese ed altra persona si erano appartati nella stanza della stessa Kercher per un rapporto sessuale, aveva sentito un urlo straziante dell'amica, al punto lacerante ed insostenibile da lasciarsi scivolare, accovacciata a terra, tenendo ben strette le mani alle orecchie per non sentire altro."

The Italian word "conclamato" in the context of the MR means "overt", "established", "acknowledged", or "proclaimed", not "acclaimed".

It should also be noted that the Italian text states "dato ... nel processo" meaning "a given ... of the trial proceedings" or "a fact ... of the trial proceedings", apparently emphasizing that it may not be a "proven" fact of reality, although as the MR states, supported by Knox's interrogation statement.

Here's a Google translation with the help of Collins Reverso and me:

"9.4.1 In view of this {definitive absence of any evidence that Knox or Sollecito were in Kercher's bedroom, the scene of the rape/murder, as discussed in Section 9.4}, it is now noted, as regards the position of Amanda Knox, whose presence in the cottage, the scene of the murder, is an overt given [fact] of the [Nencini appeal court trial] proceedings, according to her own admissions, also contained in the memorial she signed, in the part in which she reports that, being in the kitchen, after the young English woman and another person had retired to Kercher's room for sex, she had heard a harrowing scream from her friend, to the piercing and unbearable point that she slid down, crouched [squatted] on the floor, holding her hands tightly over her ears so as to hear no more of it."

The memorial referred to in the MR is neither of the statements that Knox wrote out in English after the interrogation, but one of the statements in Italian generated during the interrogation in which she was not provided with a lawyer nor with a fair interpreter. She disavowed those interrogation statements and claimed that they were the result of coercion.

In interpreting the validity of the alleged supporting evidence, it is critical to recall that Knox disavowed her interrogation statements and that, in accordance with a final judgment of an international human rights court (the ECHR), those statements were obtained in violation of her defense rights. Thus, they cannot be used to lawfully convict her of any crime, whether it is calunnia or murder/rape.


Indeed.

But we must remember that at the time of the Marasca judgement, the criminal slander conviction against Knox was live and unchallenged, with Supreme Court affirmation. And therefore all of the established judicial facts which had been signed off by the SC with regard to this conviction had to be taken into consideration by any other SC panel adjudicating any other related charges.

The Marasca SC panel therefore found itself in a sort of "Catch 22" situation. It could have stated unequivocally that there was no reason to suggest that Knox had been anywhere near the cottage on the night of the murder.... but that would have contradicted the SC "judicial fact" from the criminal slander conviction. That would have been a problem which might very well have required a revision trial on either the criminal slander charge or the murder-related charges. Things would have got messy, and in addition, clearly it would have painted the Italian judiciary in a poor light.

So it's fairly likely (IMO) that the Marasca SC panel started from a position of not wanting to contradict any of the judicial facts from the SC in respect of Knox's criminal slander conviction. And in fact it was relatively easy for them to do so, because nothing from Knox's criminal slander conviction posited that she had anything at all to do with the murder itself. Yes, it stated that she'd placed herself in the cottage at the time of the murder, covering her ears - but of couse that's very different indeed from wielding a knife. Nor were any of the other murder-related charges (theft of money, staging the break-in, etc) referenced in the criminal slander conviction.

So in effect, all the Marasca SC panel had to do was incorporate the possibility of Knox having been within the cottage at the time of the murder, if it was to avoid contradicting the prior SC judgement re the criminal slander conviction. And that's precisely what they did.

It's all a desperately convoluted and byzantine pile of garbage. Fortunately for justice, the ECHR rode a coach and horses through the criminal slander conviction. And had that happened - along with the required Italian remedy - prior to the Marasca SC panel hearing and judgement, things would have been incredibly straightforward. But as it was, these stupid judicial gymnastics had to have taken place.....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:26 AM   #2902
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Indeed.

But we must remember that at the time of the Marasca judgement, the criminal slander conviction against Knox was live and unchallenged, with Supreme Court affirmation. And therefore all of the established judicial facts which had been signed off by the SC with regard to this conviction had to be taken into consideration by any other SC panel adjudicating any other related charges.

The Marasca SC panel therefore found itself in a sort of "Catch 22" situation. It could have stated unequivocally that there was no reason to suggest that Knox had been anywhere near the cottage on the night of the murder.... but that would have contradicted the SC "judicial fact" from the criminal slander conviction. That would have been a problem which might very well have required a revision trial on either the criminal slander charge or the murder-related charges. Things would have got messy, and in addition, clearly it would have painted the Italian judiciary in a poor light.

So it's fairly likely (IMO) that the Marasca SC panel started from a position of not wanting to contradict any of the judicial facts from the SC in respect of Knox's criminal slander conviction. And in fact it was relatively easy for them to do so, because nothing from Knox's criminal slander conviction posited that she had anything at all to do with the murder itself. Yes, it stated that she'd placed herself in the cottage at the time of the murder, covering her ears - but of couse that's very different indeed from wielding a knife. Nor were any of the other murder-related charges (theft of money, staging the break-in, etc) referenced in the criminal slander conviction.

So in effect, all the Marasca SC panel had to do was incorporate the possibility of Knox having been within the cottage at the time of the murder, if it was to avoid contradicting the prior SC judgement re the criminal slander conviction. And that's precisely what they did.

It's all a desperately convoluted and byzantine pile of garbage. Fortunately for justice, the ECHR rode a coach and horses through the criminal slander conviction. And had that happened - along with the required Italian remedy - prior to the Marasca SC panel hearing and judgement, things would have been incredibly straightforward. But as it was, these stupid judicial gymnastics had to have taken place.....
Even if we do get the calunnia vacated we will still have M/B and it's multiple references to the calunnia that will be redundant. I simply can't understand how the MR document would be allowed to stand without some kind of modification. Can it be done?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:14 AM   #2903
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Even if we do get the calunnia vacated we will still have M/B and it's multiple references to the calunnia that will be redundant. I simply can't understand how the MR document would be allowed to stand without some kind of modification. Can it be done?

Hoots
I doubt that there is a mechanism or desire among the Italian authorities to correct every judicial misstatement or incorrect "judicial fact" in Italian motivation reports.

Recall that the Marasca CSC panel misstatement is in a section devoted to hypotheticals intended to show that even if certain (false) premises were correct, neither Knox nor Sollecito were guilty of the murder/rape .

It will be a chore enough for the Italian judiciary to revise Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:12 AM   #2904
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,247
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I doubt that there is a mechanism or desire among the Italian authorities to correct every judicial misstatement or incorrect "judicial fact" in Italian motivation reports.

Recall that the Marasca CSC panel misstatement is in a section devoted to hypotheticals intended to show that even if certain (false) premises were correct, neither Knox nor Sollecito were guilty of the murder/rape .

It will be a chore enough for the Italian judiciary to revise Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba.
The "mechanism" is a subsequent motivations report from an equal or superior court within Italy which says something different.

From Massei onwards, this case generated 5 motivation reports. The 3rd one set the calunnia conviction into stone, which not even the 5th one could touch, until the ECHR destroyed that conviction's legality.

But for all the individual factoids, esp. the ones in the two lower convicting courts, the fact that neither could agree on a set of facts leading to a "theory of the crime", says it all. The 2013 Supreme Court directed the coming Nencini court to revisit 3 evidentiary items, items neglected even by the Massei court in 2009.

Apparently the 2013 Supreme Court thought that **both** Massei as well as Hellmann had erred in refusing to entertain the original prosecutors' "sex game gone wrong" theory. Well....... even after a third trial, the Nencini trial, Nencini even rejected it too.

Yet, on this very thread, there still are guilter-nutters pounding on sex games. After **all** the courts rejected mixed-blood, save for an oblique and unclear reference to it in Nencini's report, there still are guilter-nutters pounding on it.

So at this point any prosecutor's case against AK and/or RS is such a dog's breakfast of factoids, why bother even trying to correct the factoids on which successful, but provisional prosecutions were based? I mean Mignini's theory bears no relation at all to Crini's theory, which in turn bore no relation to what Nencini eventually wrote.

Which is why the final, definitive court wrote it the way they did - even if that dog's breakfast had been true, none of it puts AK or RS in the murder room at the time of the murder.

Enough. The court said "enough" to trying to chase this factoid based case. Calunnia needs a formal, judicial ruling within Italy to undo, but as for the rest, it's hopeless to correct all the factoid judicial facts this sham generated.

When all you have at the end of the day are judicially generated facts, that tells you all you need to know.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; Today at 08:15 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.