|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 26, 2011 13:34:17 GMT -5
I'd like to discuss here your "basic outline of the crime" idea. fortaleza84.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/is-amanda-knox-guilty/#comment-53First you say "Also, before I explain why I think Knox is guilty, I think it’s worthwhile to explain what I think happened, i.e. the basic outline of the crime." But then you say "In short, I think it’s worthwhile to show how it’s remotely plausible (even if very unlikely) that Knox took part in the murder." This seems inconsistent - can you clarify what you are saying here? Surely you don't believe in very unlikely events? Anyway, your idea of a motive is "It’s actually not super hard to imagine a conversation in which Knox mentioned to Sollecito how stuck up and annoying her roommate was and Sollecito proposed setting her up to get raped." Well I do find this rather unlikely. For a start, as I suggest elsewhere, I don't think Meredith really was "stuck up", she was sexually active. But leaving that aside, the problem is how Rudy could have become involved in this plot. Raffaele did not know him at all - it's really hard to imagine striking up a conversation with a complete stranger and inviting him to a gang rape. You suggest that murder was not the objective - but in that case how were Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele expecting to get away with this? I do have some possible motive theories of my own - based on Raffaele being jealous of Rudy for fancying Amanda ( this was a fact ), and somehow setting Rudy up to sexually assault Meredith without Rudy being aware of it, and thus get Rudy into trouble. Then when Meredith realised what had happened, she got mad and there was a fight. It's quite a stretch though, and without any evidence, it's impossible to have any confident belief in such an improbable idea, when there is a very simple explanation for the evidence - that Rudy acted alone, and a burglary developed into murder. |
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 27, 2011 5:46:45 GMT -5
This seems inconsistent - can you clarify what you are saying here? I'm attempting to roughly assess the prior probability that Knox is guilty, i.e. the chances that she is guilty before one looks at the actual evidence against her. This is an important question and I think an example will illustrate. Suppose you have a friend who you have found to be a very honest, reliable, and trustworthy person. One day he tells you that he just won $10,000 in the lottery and he wants to take you out to dinner with some of his winnings. In that case, you would think that most likely he is telling you the truth. On the other hand, suppose that one day he tells you that he was just abducted by space aliens, taken on a trip to Mars, anally probed, and dropped back on the Earth with a briefcase containing $10,000. He wants to use some of the money to take you to dinner. In that case, you would naturally be skeptical of your friend's story even though he is generally speaking an honest, reliable, trustworthy person. The basic evidence in these two scenarios is essentially the same -- the eyewitness testimony of a reasonably reliable person. However the prior probabilities are very different which is why your probability estimates would reasonably be different. In the case of Amanda Knox, it's pretty unlikely (a priori) that a middle class white girl with no criminal record would conspire with a black thug and murder her roommate. But it's not outrageously unlikely like being abducted by space aliens. Of course I do. Very unlikely events happen every day. But that's beside the point. Well let me ask you this: Do you agree that she apparently noted to an acquaintance that Knox became involved boyfriend almost immediately after arriving in Italy? How do you know that? Are you simply accepting Sollecito's word? They might have expected that Kercher would not report having been raped. Or that if she did, they could simply deny involvement. That does not explain the various evidence which suggests that Knox and Sollecito were involved. |
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 10:07:24 GMT -5
This seems inconsistent - can you clarify what you are saying here? I'm attempting to roughly assess the prior probability that Knox is guilty, i.e. the chances that she is guilty before one looks at the actual evidence against her. This is an important question and I think an example will illustrate. Suppose you have a friend who you have found to be a very honest, reliable, and trustworthy person. One day he tells you that he just won $10,000 in the lottery and he wants to take you out to dinner with some of his winnings. In that case, you would think that most likely he is telling you the truth. On the other hand, suppose that one day he tells you that he was just abducted by space aliens, taken on a trip to Mars, anally probed, and dropped back on the Earth with a briefcase containing $10,000. He wants to use some of the money to take you to dinner. In that case, you would naturally be skeptical of your friend's story even though he is generally speaking an honest, reliable, trustworthy person. The basic evidence in these two scenarios is essentially the same -- the eyewitness testimony of a reasonably reliable person. However the prior probabilities are very different which is why your probability estimates would reasonably be different. In the case of Amanda Knox, it's pretty unlikely (a priori) that a middle class white girl with no criminal record would conspire with a black thug and murder her roommate. But it's not outrageously unlikely like being abducted by space aliens. Ah, I see. Yes that's quite reasonable. My own approach is more to consider relative probabilities. In other words, you make a prosecution case, and a defence case, then consider their relative likelihood. For example. in my Massei report analysis, I consider "Conspiracy among 3 near strangers with no apparent motive vs burglary gone wrong" to be 5% versus 95%. This is "on it's own", without regard to other evidence. Is this the man she met on a train (story found on MySpace)? Yes, absolutely. Although calling him a boyfriend is probably not quite right, it was more a typical one-night stand. She may well have had some form of sex with him on the train, and almost certainly when they went to his home for the night where she said she smoked (cannabis) with him. Then they (Amanda and her sister) left the next morning. The police must have looked for evidence of involvement, and apparently found nothing. Remember it would have been risky for Raffaele to deny ever having met Rudy when he actually had. So there is little reason to doubt Raffaele on this. Well, ok, maybe. Seems a pretty risky thing to me. And all three of them were willing to take this risk? Well, as I am trying to show you, there are plausible (innocent) explanations for the various bits of evidence that suggest involvement, and ( I keep coming back to this ) we should EXPECT there to be some evidence (by random confusion / chance) even if they are innocent, it's only an unreasonable surplus of such circumstantial evidence that would make me seriously suspect they are guillty. At some stage, maybe we could summarise this evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 28, 2011 21:53:27 GMT -5
That's very different from your assertion that Sollecito "did not know him at all." As I recall from the Massei report, there was evidence that Sollecito would have had plenty of opportunity to meet Guede.
Anyway, I realize that you are unlikely to respond to this (since I banned you) but I wanted to make my position clear.
People take foolish risks all the time.
The same can be said of the evidence against OJ Simpson. Every bit of evidence against him can be explained away plausibly.
Based on my experience as an attorney, there is far more evidence against Knox and Sollecito than one would expect just from random chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris Brook on Mar 26, 2013 12:33:54 GMT -5
It is truly frightening that you are an experienced attorney and that this is your "analysis" of the evidence....
Honestly. You have buried your head in the sand. The so called evidence you keep bring up (most of which have been shown to be false) just add up to nothing...
And I am horrified that an experienced attorney could analyse evidence in the way you display.
I am glad you are not representing me!
|
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Oct 20, 2013 6:27:47 GMT -5
It is truly frightening that you are an experienced attorney and that this is your "analysis" of the evidence.... Honestly. You have buried your head in the sand. The so called evidence you keep bring up (most of which have been shown to be false) just add up to nothing... Perhaps the problem is that you yourself are not as skilled in analyzing evidence as you think you are. Please explain exactly what the problem is with my reasoning as opposed to a simply asserting conclusions. As homenim attacks are no substitute for actual evidence and arguments. Please lay out your point. TIA |
|
