Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Well you certainly would prefer it for sure if it was a capital crime given they just love to execute people in Texas.

Unless of course I am shooting a whore escort stealing my money after refusing to have sex with me.
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-s-511636423

 

[Desert Fox]

Much as I would like to, alas I can't.
The organs take a stern view of this kind of thing. AFA and all that.

You wouldn’t want comrade platonov to be 'drug' off to the gulag again would you

So, since you will not elaborate and nobody understands what you mean, are you withdrawing your previous statement?

 

[acbytesla]

So, since you will not elaborate and nobody understands what you mean, are you withdrawing your previous statement?

The real reason he won't DF, is that he was just being sarcastic.

What has been missing in this forum has been any guilter willing to discuss the evidence. They know that in this forum, you have to bring something more than baseless nonsense or your arguments are torn to pieces.

They will argue that the Luminol stains despite the negative TMB tests. They'll argue that Raffaele's DNA is on the bra clasp and dismiss the possibility of contamination, basically mocking the concept despite the science or the lack of any repeatable or repeated tests of EDFs. They'll never discuss the timeline and Time of Death. They won't discuss the lack of any connection to Rudy.

No, they either troll in the comment sections of the tabloids or hang out where they won't be challenged.

 

[Desert Fox]

The real reason he won't DF, is that he was just being sarcastic.

When I use sarcasm, I like there to be some tie into reality.
That way, somebody can look at it as sarcasm but still consider it as making a point.

 

[lonepinealex]

I Googled "Suffering of Britney" and got:

...

Any help?

Britney's just his hilarious nickname for Amanda. He's used it before. She's white and American, see? There's no difference between her and Britney Spears.

 

[Desert Fox]

Britney's just his hilarious nickname for Amanda. He's used it before. She's white and American, see? There's no difference between her and Britney Spears.

I am pretty sure that Britney Spears did not murder Meredeth either.
Maybe they [The Italian] can get Dale W. Griffis to say that Amanda was suggested to murder her roommate by Britney Spears' music.

 

[acbytesla]

Britney's just his hilarious nickname for Amanda. He's used it before. She's white and American, see? There's no difference between her and Britney Spears.

Yea...like there is a great similarity between Britney Spears and Amanda Knox. Well..I don't think either can sing although I'm not totally sure about Amanda. So that's one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Casey Anthony and the case of the extra alleles

I am pretty sure that Britney Spears did not murder Meredeth either.
Maybe they [The Italian] can get Dale W. Griffis to say that Amanda was suggested to murder her roommate by Britney Spears' music.

Desert Fox,

Some time ago a PG blogger tried to show how one could find Amanda's DNA profile in the autosomal electropherogram associated with the bra clasp. To his credit, he tried Casey Anthony's profile, and it fit somewhat better. I think that his exercise was a good illustration of why one should not perform suspect-centered DNA profiling.

 

[Samson]

Desert Fox,

Some time ago a PG blogger tried to show how one could find Amanda's DNA profile in the bra clasp. To his credit, he tried Casey Anthony's profile, and it fit somewhat better. I think that his exercise was a good illustration of why one should not perform suspect-centered DNA profiling.

When I read this, by someone who is articulate and clearly of good IQ I am dumbfounded that he could be a genuine guilter, though I have read him on PMF so I guess it must be so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Desert Fox,

Some time ago a PG blogger tried to show how one could find Amanda's DNA profile in the autosomal electropherogram associated with the bra clasp. To his credit, he tried Casey Anthony's profile, and it fit somewhat better. I think that his exercise was a good illustration of why one should not perform suspect-centered DNA profiling.

I had a friend today at lunch describe to me what "is compatible with", means in terms of determining guilt.... as in the method used by the courts in this case.

He offered the analogy of a man being suspected of murder. He claims to have been at his apartment across town at the crucial time. However, someone had telephoned his apartment coincidently at the same time as the murder. He had not answered.

This bit of evidence is therefore compatible with the claim that he's the murderer. Does it prove one way or the other that he is? Of course not. At trial he said that he often did not answer the phone, and friends concurred that this was an annoying habit of his. However, still.... on the face of it, the bare bones of this factoid is that it is compatible with the notion of his guilt.

Imagine a whole series of these types of things. A whole series like this that in and of themselves prove nothing - and furthermore that there is nothing at the crime scene suggesting that this person had been there.

What there is is a lot of factoids which are compatible with the notion og guilt, however even taken osmotically don't begin to approach any meaningful definition of evidence of guilt.

I wish I'd had this lunch long, long ago. I am now going to invite the Cassation judges to lunch with me....

 

[Samson]

I had a friend today at lunch describe to me what "is compatible with", means in terms of determining guilt.... as in the method used by the courts in this case.

He offered the analogy of a man being suspected of murder. He claims to have been at his apartment across town at the crucial time. However, someone had telephoned his apartment coincidently at the same time as the murder. He had not answered.

This bit of evidence is therefore compatible with the claim that he's the murderer. Does it prove one way or the other that he is? Of course not. At trial he said that he often did not answer the phone, and friends concurred that this was an annoying habit of his. However, still.... on the face of it, the bare bones of this factoid is that it is compatible with the notion of his guilt.

Imagine a whole series of these types of things. A whole series like this that in and of themselves prove nothing - and furthermore that there is nothing at the crime scene suggesting that this person had been there.

What there is is a lot of factoids which are compatible with the notion og guilt, however even taken osmotically don't begin to approach any meaningful definition of evidence of guilt.

I wish I'd had this lunch long, long ago. I am now going to invite the Cassation judges to lunch with me....

What is far more concerning to me is their is proof of innocence, in so far as they would clearly be quite unable to give a valid account of how they could have participated in the crime. I think the case has the cart in front of the horse.
In New Zealand Amanda would be charged with wasting police time if she tried to pretend she was involved, for example suggesting Raffaele had done it.

From Wiki

In New Zealand, one can be charged under Section 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1981[4] for committing either of the following acts:
Making, or causing to be made, to a police employee any allegation of an offence "contrary to the fact and without a belief in the truth of the statement".
Creating serious apprehension for the safety of any person or property (whether by statement or behaviour), either with the intention of causing wasteful employment or diversion of police resources, or being reckless as to that result.

A person convicted under this section may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to NZ$2000.

 

[anglolawyer]

I had a friend today at lunch describe to me what "is compatible with", means in terms of determining guilt.... as in the method used by the courts in this case.

He offered the analogy of a man being suspected of murder. He claims to have been at his apartment across town at the crucial time. However, someone had telephoned his apartment coincidently at the same time as the murder. He had not answered.

This bit of evidence is therefore compatible with the claim that he's the murderer. Does it prove one way or the other that he is? Of course not. At trial he said that he often did not answer the phone, and friends concurred that this was an annoying habit of his. However, still.... on the face of it, the bare bones of this factoid is that it is compatible with the notion of his guilt.

Imagine a whole series of these types of things. A whole series like this that in and of themselves prove nothing - and furthermore that there is nothing at the crime scene suggesting that this person had been there.

What there is is a lot of factoids which are compatible with the notion og guilt, however even taken osmotically don't begin to approach any meaningful definition of evidence of guilt.

I wish I'd had this lunch long, long ago. I am now going to invite the Cassation judges to lunch with me....

What if the evidence had been that he always answered his phone? The fact is that if you pile up enough of this stuff you can prove a case well enough. It is normal for individual items of circumstantial evidence to be pretty meaningless when viewed in isolation.

 

[Bill Williams]

What if the evidence had been that he always answered his phone? The fact is that if you pile up enough of this stuff you can prove a case well enough. It is normal for individual items of circumstantial evidence to be pretty meaningless when viewed in isolation.

I thought I'd got my head around this concept of, "is compatible with." I guess there's another lunch in the offing.

 

[Dan O.]

What if the evidence had been that he always answered his phone? The fact is that if you pile up enough of this stuff you can prove a case well enough. It is normal for individual items of circumstantial evidence to be pretty meaningless when viewed in isolation.

You have to be careful there. If you look deep enough you can find many elements that are compatible with a theory of guilt. It's especially so if you get to make up that theory to fit those found elements. Adding up the individual probabilities of each of the elements and claiming that they constitute proof if they reach some imagined threshold is invalid because it is a form of cherry picking.

 

[Desert Fox]

What if the evidence had been that he always answered his phone? The fact is that if you pile up enough of this stuff you can prove a case well enough. It is normal for individual items of circumstantial evidence to be pretty meaningless when viewed in isolation.

I thought I'd got my head around this concept of, "is compatible with." I guess there's another lunch in the offing.

Kind of the meaning behind circumstantial case as I see it.

 

[acbytesla]

You have to be careful there. If you look deep enough you can find many elements that are compatible with a theory of guilt. It's especially so if you get to make up that theory to fit those found elements. Adding up the individual probabilities of each of the elements and claiming that they constitute proof if they reach some imagined threshold is invalid because it is a form of cherry picking.

This whole "compatible" is really nonsense. These are simply elements that neither prove or disprove involvement. The reality is that there are many of these so called elements as there would be for countless people.

But they never really delve into the elements which are not compatible and in fact disprove their involvement. Like;

1. the distribution of glass in Filomena's room.
2. the lack of connection to Rudy.
3. the time of death.

Any and all of these should be considered enough reason to acquit both Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[anglolawyer]

You have to be careful there. If you look deep enough you can find many elements that are compatible with a theory of guilt. It's especially so if you get to make up that theory to fit those found elements. Adding up the individual probabilities of each of the elements and claiming that they constitute proof if they reach some imagined threshold is invalid because it is a form of cherry picking.

I prefer 'probative' to 'compatible'. In fact, until this case, I had never heard of the latter being used in this context. But let's have none of this 'adding up probabilities' nonsense. The next thing will be bloody Bayesian statistics and I'll really start doing my nut. Psuedo-scientific cobblers for people who can't use ordinary words to express degrees of likelihood.

This whole "compatible" is really nonsense. These are simply elements that neither prove or disprove involvement. The reality is that there are many of these so called elements as there would be for countless people.

But they never really delve into the elements which are not compatible and in fact disprove their involvement. Like;

1. the distribution of glass in Filomena's room.
2. the lack of connection to Rudy.
3. the time of death.

Any and all of these should be considered enough reason to acquit both Amanda and Raffaele.

This is more like it. Look at the totality of the evidence and see what it tells you.

I'm wheeling out the case of David Gillroy once more because it is perfectly illustrative of what a circumstantial case looks like. He was convicted of murdering his former lover despite her body never being found. It's a Scottish case with these circumstantial elements:

1 he was a married man having a secret affair with the victim, Suzanne Pilley but she had broken things off shortly before and begun another relationship (motive - jealousy)

2 she arrived at work on the day she disappeared (CCTV) but never reached her desk (sudden and out of character disappearance suggesting violent end)

3 until that day, he had been sending her hundreds of text messages but then suddenly stopped (knowledge of her death)

4 that day or the next he bought a large quantity of air freshener (to erase evidence of disposal of the body)

5 he made a trip into the Scottish Highlands to a particular destination but the journey took a couple of hours longer than it should (disposal and concealment of body)

6 when questioned by police it was noticed that he had scratched on his hands and face which he had tried to mask with make up (involvement in violence, concealment)

7 (presumably as he did not testify and called no evidence, I think) no alibi

Look at each point individually, forgetting about the rest. Each can be innocently explained. This is normal. Cumulatively, however, they all point the same way and paint a clear picture. He attacked her in the basement of her office building, put her in his car, drove into the highlands and buried her. None of these facts could be directly proved. There are no contrary indicators (as there could be for each point and as Tesla lists above).

Forget about 'adding up probabilities'. That is a needless abstraction. When I catch a ball, I don't work out the maths: the precise trajectory, velocity, the mechanical movement of arms and fingers etc. I can catch the ball without all that crap. Likewise, there is no need to calculate the likelihood of a man innocently buying a large quantity of air freshener on a particular day, even if such a fanciful computation were possible (which it isn't) and add that to the probability that he might also innocently choose to stop texting someone. All pie in the sky. Go to a British court and see how it's done. No lawyer I know would bother with such nonsense.

Gilroy is appealing his conviction btw.

 

[Desert Fox]

A close US parallel to David Gillroy is Scott Peterson
http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/peterson-scott-lee.htm

 

[anglolawyer]

A close US parallel to David Gillroy is Scott Peterson
http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/peterson-scott-lee.htm

I agree. A much-discussed case over at Injustice Anywhere. It would have been interesting to see whether they could have convicted him without finding the bodies of his wife and unborn child. They obviously judged they could not but I suspect it would have been a close run thing.

Don't get me and Williams started on this one.

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree. A much-discussed case over at Injustice Anywhere. It would have been interesting to see whether they could have convicted him without finding the bodies of his wife and unborn child. They obviously judged they could not but I suspect it would have been a close run thing.

Don't get me and Williams started on this one.

I read some of the exchange . . . . .
One item, while I am against the Death Penalty, even if I was Pro Death Penalty [I used to be just barely pro Death Penalty], I would not like putting him on Death Row on the evidence although I would likely have convicted him of murder.