Gallery

The Theory of falsifiability; the key element missing from prosecutor’s case against Amanda Knox


Sir Karl Popper (generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the century) developed the theory of falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science. I believe this same theory can be applied to the Amanda Knox case.

amandaknox

photo from CNN site < http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=382&sid=477607 >

Prosecutor Giuliani Mignini had no facts that would support his hypothesis that Amanda Knox was in the room at the time of the murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher, .on, or around November 1, 2007. His hypothesis was never scrutinized with a falsibility test because he orchestrated the denial of any such counter-arguments from being introduced with the continued suppression of evidence introduced by the defense. This evidence would have clearly demonstrated that the arguments by prosecutor Mignini proved highly problematic to rendering a trial, let alone a guilty verdict.

In order for an argument to be an argument, there must be two sides, allowed equal opportunity to prevent it’s case. In this particular case against Amanda Knox, this was not actualized. The prosecutor not only contaminated the crime scene and found no traces of Amanda Knox even being there at the time of the murder; they used factual evidence of the real perpetrator’s guilt, as an instrument to sway public opinion for Amanda Knox’s guilty verdict. The reality is, the only real information the prosecutor had was circumstantial evidence. That is to say, they only had the statement by the guilty against Amanda Knox, who allegedly made a deal to offer said evidence in a deal to get a lighter
sentence.

There are those out there that believe Amanda Knox is guilty because they have been bombarded with the media campaign, orchestrated by the prosecutor, in the spreading false propaganda against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. That, with the suppression of critical evidence from the defense and the acceptance of “hearsay” testimonies by the prosecutor team, has successfully created a hostile atmosphere toward Ms Knox. Simple-minded people believe what they are told first (the defining moment of a particular event), rather than taking the time to utilize critical thought, which would be more time consuming.

I challenge all who have made up their minds to place judgment on Ms Knox to ask themselves what led them to that conclusion. What facts have you heard about the case led you to that conclusion? Now, if newly discovered evidenced showed that key defense evidence and witnesses were denied access to this trial; that has the potential to exonerate Ms. Knox of any and all wrong-doing, would you be inclined to accept this revelation, or would you continue to be skeptical?
If the latter is true, the damage done to Ms Knox is quite severe and should be
acknowledged when attempting to remedying the withholding of this young person’s liberty for approximately four years and the irreversible affliction of stress from this event, which will be with her for the rest of her life.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s