More on Amanda Knox’s Innocence

Video: Amanda Knox Is Innocent

The following is part of an Internet discussion.  It seems plausible.  Check it out yourself.  Please leave a comment in the comments section if this discussion is in any way incorrect.

Lince wrote: They have very own version of logic and common sense. I have no doubt that their version of probability theory is equally inventive. For example, maybe in their osmosis approach they simply add probabilities of such extremely unlikely claims together. Even if single probabilities are quite/very low, sheer number of such statements can bring the total sum close to 100% (i.e., probability 1). Ergo, “beyond reasonable doubt” is soundly demonstrated.

Francisco wrote: There is no maybe about it. This was the tactic Crini took in his appeal and Cassation completely agreed, as was written in their motivation. I fully expect Nencini’s report will be more of the same… took rulings from previous trials not involving Amanda and Raffaele as rulings of fact against them and then did the osmosis thing to make all those irrelevant tidbits add up to something they consider meaningful.

Justinian wrote: Probability theory is taught in high school in America. Usually grade 10. It’s hard to believe that the entire prosecution team, the appeals courts and the ISC missed these courses that are/were required by high school students in the USA!

At the epicenter for my total disgust of civilization today is the abomination of legal remedies for the causation of harm and injury. (A.K.A. Justice.)  No where is this judicial malfeasance more obvious than with the case of Amanda Knox.  It’s much worse to incarcerate an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free (as they have frequently in Florida).  The reason is that it is the sole purpose and job of government to protect the rights of their citizens.  A government, our government, should, bottom line, protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Absolutely from the malfeasance of external governments like Italy!

 

Video: Amanda Knox Is Innocent

Amanda’s Innocence

Please click to see a very powerful video:  Judge Heavey on Amanda Knox’s Innocence

Judge Claudio Hellmann said there was “A substantive nonexistence of evidence” and found Amanda and Raffaele not just “Not Guilty – Insufficient Evidence” but he used the rarely used term of “Innocent: – Did Not commit the crime.” Amanda returned home after his trial.

But the Italian Supreme Court overturned the decision of his court and Amanda could potentially be extradited back to Italy.

This video debunks Dershowitz as an expert.  Dershowitz Debunked

This video is from a recent news show in the UK.  Each of Those DNA Tests has Exonerated Her  The Italian ‘Expert’ being interviewed says there is a lot of evidence.  Yes, there are, for example, ten pieces of evidence in addition to the mentioned DNA evidence that show reasonable doubt that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon.  This isn’t ‘A Lot’ of evidence for the prosecution.  This is ten pieces of evidence that each refute the knife as the murder weapon.  These are ten reasons for having reasonable doubt that the knife is the murder weapon.   Collectively they constitute 100% proof that the knife is NOT the murder weapon.

The probability that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon is probably less than .00000001=(.01)^4. The only reason that the defense would keep drawing attention to it is because it is a ‘Red Herring’ (a distraction). Mathematically the probability that the knife is the murder weapon are all the ‘reasonable doubts’ multiplied together. The reasonable doubts: Randomly picked, wrong size for the wounds, wrong size for the stain on the bed sheet, no blood, no cellular material, LCN DNA, not found at the murder scene, etc. They should remember that the highest probability is one.

This is the ‘connecting logic’: the probability that the kitchen knife is the murder weapon is zero (non-existent). Therefore, discussion of DNA on a non-existent murder weapon is a waste of time.

In the annals of false confessions, there are only two other cases that rival the Knox case: the Billy Wayne Cope case and the Norfolk Four case.  Project Innocence’s reason for the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele

The Italians are rudderless and clearly confused.

This is as dystopian as ‘justice’ gets.

A View of One Possible Utopia

I want to secede from the USA.  Americans have a skewered morality; they are not my peers.

I want to secede from people that think sex with a person is a bigger crime than shooting him dead.  (Victimless ‘crimes’ are never crimes.)

I want to secede from sociopathic Americans that play the knockout game  .

I want to secede from people that invent ‘facts’ in court;  Zimmerman’s head scratch was not proof of a life or death struggle caused and started by Tray.

I want to secede from people that think it’s OK that the 400 richest Americans have as much wealth as the poorest 150 million.

I want to secede from people that have sociopathic views about punishment (ALL punishment is cruel and unusual).

I want to secede from people that have sociopathic views about firearms (There is never sufficient justification to kill another with a firearm)

I want to secede from those people that think super rights should be given to some because of their belief in sodomy.

Many of my ancestors fought for the preservation of the union.  They were wrong.

I ask to be allowed to secede and live by the rules of a government that:

  • Gives people total freedom as long as they do nothing to diminish the freedoms of others/another.
  • Only collects income taxes from the opulent (currently the wealthiest 10%)
  • Randomly picks representatives from a lottery of the educated.
  • Only spends tax revenue for infrastructure and job creation.
  • Helps to provide jobs for all including, if necessary, tariffs.
  • Requires that facts that are presented in court have given calculated probability and relevance tolerances.
  • Does not punish.  Not ever.
  • Does not allow firearms.
  • Establishes long range goals and gives azimuths for their attainment (even if it takes 1000 years)

Secession is strength!

The Majority is Foolish

Men are four:
He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool—shun him;
He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple—teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep—wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, he is wise—follow him!
        Lady Burton—Life of Sir Richard Burton. Given as an Arabian Proverb.

 

I would say that there are four types of people.  There are teachers, students, peers (those who teach and learn from each other), and fools (those that know not that they know not.)

The four types of people:
The peer.   Peers will learn from and teach each other.
The teacher.  He will recognize students that want to learn and can learn.  He will teach with sound data and sources.  He will use good logic, extrapolate well and stamp out false sources and logical fallacies.
The student.   He will listen, question wisely, and learn.  He will be polite and respectful.  He will exchange for his training.  He knows there is something to learn.  He is wise enough to know that he can learn and doesn’t know everything.
The fool.  He will be disruptive and disrespectful.  He will rationalize, use false logic and use fallacies.  He will use poor sources of information.  He will neither learn or teach.  He may think he knows it all already.

Utopian Azimuths

A Utopian Azimuth is a goal for perfection.  An example of a Utopian Azimuth would be to have a justice system that would never incarcerate an innocent person or let a guilty person go free.

It is a lofty goal and one that has never been achieved anywhere in the world.

Another example of a Utopian Azimuth would be to have a system of commercial aircraft that would fly anybody anywhere in the world without a fatal accident.

We have had years when this goal has been achieved.

Azimuths are perfection.  Perfection can never be achieved, but perfection can continually be sought.  Perfection can be approached.  We can get closer and closer to perfection.

If a government isn’t striving to achieve perfection in all things, then it is broken.  If a government doesn’t have perfect azimuths, then it will not only never achieve perfection, but will get more and more dystopian over time.

The first test of a government is to ask what their Utopian goals are.  If the answer is that “Utopia is impossible” or “Utopia is socialism” or anything but a direction and an effort to achieve perfection, then that government is dystopian.  If a candidate has no utopian goals or if those goals don’t apply to everybody, then that candidate is dystopian.

The World of Today, or the World of Fun & Love

I’m an anti republican, anti democrat, anti liberal, anti conservative, anti Limbaugh, anti gun, anti court, anti one percent, anti monopoly, anti government, anti socialist, anti communist, anti skeptic, anti capitalist, anti democracy, anti dictatorship, anti law, anti blame, anti punishment, anti tax, anti force, anti super rights and anti war.

I’m for maximum fun, maximum love, maximum sanity, for kindness, for politeness, for justice, for restitution, for prophylaxis, for maximum liberty, for maximum freedom, for maximum health, for equal rights, maximum employment, maximum opportunities, for proportionate responses, fair and equitable exchanges, maximum honesty, maximum truth, maximum morality, maximum logic, maximum education and maximized environment.

The world today focuses on the process and the groups of paragraph #1.   The world I love focuses on the results and conditions of paragraph #2.  No, paragraph #1 does not lead to paragraph #2.  Paragraph #2 has lead to paragraph #2.

American Utopias

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Utopian_communities.aspx

As Brook Farm and Fruitlands dissolved, converts to the ideas of Charles Fourier in the United States grew to take the place of the transcendentalists. Fourierists believed that small, highly organized communities (or phalanxes) would allow residents to perfectly develop their talents and inclinations, free from the influence of traditional capitalist society. The standard phalanx consisted of 1,620 people living in common dwellings and working in their natural trades. In America, Arthur Brisbane became the chiefadvocate of phalanxes, hoping that they would complete what, to him, was the unfinished Revolution of 1776 by ending wage slavery. By the 1840s, Brisbane and his disciples had founded more than one hundred phalanxes across the country, from New York to Texas. Although most of these communities failed in short order, their existence underscored the general dissatisfaction some workers felt with industrialization and the triumph of the capitalist order.

There have been many attempts at starting Utopia in America.  Americans have long had the Liberty to start Utopias.

If you start one, please let us hear about it!

 

Utopia Isn’t One Size Fits All!

The year was 1909 and mass production techniques had just started.  Henry Ford is quoted as saying: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.”  People, however,  wanted their car painted in the color of their preference and soon vehicles of every imaginable color were rolling off the production line.

Utopia is a civilization that is nearly perfect for you and others that share your preferences.  You don’t want a compromise civilization dictated to you by others any more than you want only one choice in car color.  Don’t let governments tell you that they can’t give you a custom government.  That’s BS.  They are just protecting their power and vested interests.  Don’t listen to the one government people.

Suppose you could pick out the features/options of your new government the same way you could pick out the features/options of your next car.  What options would you choose?  What flavor of democracy would you want?  What are the rules of your capitalism?  What human rights are most important?  Perhaps you would want socialism or a benevolent dictatorship.  How do you want wealth distributed.  Do you want everybody to have the same wealth or do you want it the way it is in the USA with the top one percent possessing wealth equal to the poorest 95 percent? (see Wikipedia).  Perhaps you want a ten to one ratio in wealth where the richest have approximately ten times the wealth of the poorest person?  Do you want representative democracy as we have now (voting for a lawyer to vote for what you want).  Or perhaps you want a direct democracy via computers, a lottocracy, a plutocracy/aristocracy (what we have now).  What about a conceptology (a new idea)?  In a conceptology, you would vote for a book of 200 pages or less that describes a new plan.  Perhaps you want voters to prove their mettle before being voter qualified.

Design your own Utopia and send it to me via the contact form.  I will pay $100 for every unique and viable plan submitted and published by this site.  Include your name, address and phone number so that you can be paid.  Your contact information will not be published.  The offer is limited to the first few submittals.

What is the USA?

stmps

Certainly the USA isn’t the ONLY nation with Freedom, Liberty, Equality and Justice.  It is also obvious that the USA doesn’t have the worst Freedom, Liberty, Equality and Justice of any nation on earth.  It is also certain that the ranking of these qualities among earth nations is moot (open to debate).

The troubled half of the population will argue that the qualities of Freedom, Liberty, Equality and Justice, as found in the USA, cannot be improved.  This essay does not address these skeptics, but the choir – those that believe that change is possible and they can, in some small way, support change.  The ‘choir’ has the belief that society can become more perfect.

With Justice, would some get away with murder because people either don’t understand what a fact is?  Would some get away with murder because the law makes murder legal in certain situations?  Would some go to jail for years for doing something that didn’t cause anyone harm, loss or injury?  Would trials be long and expensive?

With freedom, would force be necessary?  With Freedom, would people be constrained in choice or action?  Freedom is described as: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.  With freedom from government, or anarchy, we would not have freedom as others could rule us by force taking what they wanted from us at gunpoint.

Liberty is defined as:  the power to do as one pleases or freedom from physical restraint;  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control; the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges; the power of choice; a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; permission especially to go freely within specified limits.

With liberty, there are some constraints to absolute freedom that would be applied by the police or the courts as ordained by government rules and regulations.  The maximum freedom would be a universal self restraint from causing others harm or injury.  Maximum liberty, then, would require that the laws, courts, justice and police be as perfect and as possible.  Maximum freedom would be the ability to select the government of your choice, if not one of individual creation.

Liberty and Freedom are plausibly proportional to freedom of choice.  They are proportional to the minimization of force.  They are proportional to the ethics of all members of society as less force is necessary with a completely ethical, honest, trustworthy and sentient society.

Perhaps more electronic monitoring can replace force and punishment as a control  mechanism.  Perhaps the only punishment and or force needs to be banishment.  Perhaps justice requires mainly electronic monitoring and not require the ‘logic’ of the troubled half of society.

Perhaps maximum Freedom requires one to choose his own government and the people in his society.

Equality requires equality of rights and representation.  Equality of representation would require a lottocracy where representatives are randomly chosen from a pool of college educated or super literate people so that every profession, sex and race has an opportunity to be equally represented.

If freedom requires selection of the members of society and equality requires randomness, then there is a problem that requires compromise as part of the solution.  Maximum Liberty requires Justice to establish just compromise between Freedom and Equality.

Maximum Liberty does not require a one size fits all approach or  a homogenous society.   Maximum Liberty does probably require an absolute equality of rights.

Earth's dystopian societies know not that they know not. A Utopian Society knows what it wants.