Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

"In a stunning new development"
"fleeing his own appeal"
"PR consultant"
"cut your relative loose like a wounded albatross"

This reads like a sleazy tabloid. Do you read the National Enquirer or Star? Enjoy Maury Povich and Jerry Springer? I have noticed the pro-guilt crowd all seem to enjoy tabloid style journalism over scientific sources such as Peter Gill or Conti & Vecchiotti. The pro-guilt community oozes this yellow journalism writing style, as evidenced here by stilicho. It's like they're a bunch of 45 year old housewives with nothing better to do than gossip about their slutty neighbor.

There are ways to evaluate quality and unbiasedness of sources. Of course, the best way is to critically evaluate the piece using your brain and cross-checking the claims with other known, reliable sources. Another way is to look for sensationalist words. Like "in a stunning new development". "Cut your relative loose like a wounded albatross". Compare this with something scientific and rigorous:

"The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA."

It is telling that you like to get your evidence from Jerry Springer and the National Enquirer over the world's top forensic scientists. No wonder you think Amanda is guilty.

Don't forget on the pro guilt side that "Amanda is stinky", "Amanda had sex in a train," "Amanda has drug dealers on her cell phone," "Amanda did cartwheels."

 

[carbonjam72]

Time to call the 'mercy' rule

I am more amused than annoyed. The purpose of the "scare quotes" (perhaps they are not used everywhere?) is to show that the words are meant sarcastically or satirically.

What you have done is the same as this "proof":

The person who murdered Meredith Kercher was a person who breathed air and ate food.

An internet poster using the screen name Machiavelli is a person who breathes air and eats food.

Therefore, the internet poster screen name Machiavelli is a person who should be a suspect in the murder, because of the compatibility of breathing and eating.

Do you perhaps see the logical flaw in the argument I have presented? The characteristics used in the syllogism were not specific enough to identify a particular person. The same flaw is present in your attempt to match the kitchen knife to the blood stains. Almost any knife would match using your method. However, if one actually considered the details of the blood stains, one can see that the knife that made them was much smaller than the kitchen knife.

ETA: The size of the knife merely needs to be large enough to cover the stains to be "compatible" using your method.

Also, wasn't there an extraordinary consistency in the depth of the lesser two knife wounds that suggested the knife had gone in all the way to the hilt? Did that depth correspond to the bloody outline of the knife in the bed sheet? Because if so, as it must, that would also disprove Mach's thesis and photo project.

Mach's suggestion in regard to Raf's kitchen knife is just obtuse, given that the knife tested negative for blood, and the false DNA result for Meredith's DNA has been throughly discredited at this point, by C &V, Gill, and many others. Just not in Mach's guilty fantasy land, where TMB negative luminol spots are nonetheless blood, by virtue of proximity to blood.

I played in a little league baseball game when I was a kid, and the score was so lopsided against us, that the coaches agreed to call the game off.

If only MAch and other guilters had that much sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, Planigale presented an argument that involved a putative bloody handle (mark).

What I did, is simply I responded to that argument, by debunking it, showing that a different interpretation fits the physical findings.

I repeat: I am responding to that argument (about a hypothetical bloody handle).
Why do you call my argument "manufactured evidence", rather than calling so the "bloody handle" evidence assumption?

Today is not a good day for the case against AK and RS.

It needs an unknown on the internet to manufacture evidence, ah er, a compatibility.

Wow.

 

[Desert Fox]

Also, wasn't there an extraordinary consistency in the depth of the lesser two knife wounds that suggested the knife had gone in all the way to the hilt? Did that depth correspond to the bloody outline of the knife in the bed sheet? Because if so, as it must, that would also disprove Mach's thesis and photo project.

Mach's suggestion in regard to Raf's kitchen knife is just obtuse, given that the knife tested negative for blood, and the false DNA result for Meredith's DNA has been throughly discredited at this point, by C &V, Gill, and many others. Just not in Mach's guilty fantasy land, where TMB negative luminol spots are nonetheless blood, by virtue of proximity to blood.

I played in a little league baseball game when I was a kid, and the score was so lopsided against us, that the coaches agreed to call the game off.

If only MAch and other guilters had that much sense.

If I understand, once the wheels of Italian justice are in motion, nobody can yell "Stop this train." That seems to be a solid advantage of the US legal system where if the case looks bad, the prosecutor can decide that the case is horrid and just drop things. They always like to reserve the right to bring back the case but that is most often more face saving than anything.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I am not defending Mignini nor the police, I am defending the truth. And I am defending justice.
While you are a person who is defending Spezi and Preston, two proven liars, and you believe the worst covering-ups on the Narducci case, getting engaged in the most blatant denial of justice, evidence and truth on the Narducci case.

And btw, inside the cottage there are actually two clearly vidsible sets of physical traces with opposite features, including two sets of footprints, showing two different modus operandi on the scene.

-

Mach, love you man, but to me it seems like you are defending what you believe is the truth. There are some things that you have argued here, that make sense to me, but there are other things you argue that don't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me,

For example, your arguement about not needing proof of Amanda being in the room, and comparing that to Rudy's non-presence in the bathroom. That one makes sense to me.

Your arguement though about the bra clasp having to be destroyed immediately, which was why it wasn't preserved correctly, ok, I'll give you that part (please correct me if I said it wrong) if that's the law in Italy, but that's arguing from the rule of law side, and not from the justice side.

What I also look at (which is more the truth to me, and what I believe is really what's dividing us here) is the question, should this be the right thing to do? Should evidence ever be destroyed that quickly? Is that really true justice?

And, THAT is where our biggest difference lies, what kind of truth are we really looking for here,

d

-

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Today is not a good day for the case against AK and RS.

It needs an unknown on the internet to manufacture evidence, ah er, a compatibility.

Wow.

Their strategy is to manufacture "compatibility" out of thin air. Add enough "compatibilities" together and you have guilt. Even if the individual "compatibilities" are nonsense. It doesn't matter how unrealistic, improbable, or even impossible the argument is. If one can construct a scenario that is compatible with the laws of physics that means Amanda and Raffaele participated in a group orgy murder with some random burgler they didn't know.

To Machiavelli "compatible with the laws of physics" (or at least kinda close to compatible) is equivalent to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". That's what he means when he says he is a believer in "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". All you have to do is construct a scenario that may be possible with a probability of .00001% then you must convict because you can't let a possible murderer on the loose. That would ruin the reputation and careers of all these fine prosecutors, investigators, and judges.

Then write a bunch of tabloid pieces filled with emotionally driven wording to incite the mob of low IQs to give you support, then you have the recipe for a witch hunt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Their strategy is to manufacture "compatibility" out of thin air. Add enough "compatibilities" together and you have guilt. Even if the individual "compatibilities" are nonsense. It doesn't matter how unrealistic, improbable, or even impossible the argument is. If one can construct a scenario that is compatible with the laws of physics that means Amanda and Raffaele participated in a group orgy murder with some random burgler they didn't know.

To Machiavelli "compatible with the laws of physics" (or at least kinda close to compatible) is equivalent to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". That's what he means when he says he is a believer in "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". All you have to do is construct a scenario that may be possible with a probability of .00001% then you must convict because you can't let a possible murderer on the loose. That would ruin the reputation and careers of all these fine prosecutors, investigators, and judges.

Then write a bunch of tabloid pieces filled with emotionally driven wording to incite the mob of low IQs to give you support, then you have the recipe for a witch hunt.

It's a great pity we lost Grinder. He coined the dictum that in Italy 'three compatibles equals a match'. At first, I thought he was joking.

 

[Numbers]

Their strategy is to manufacture "compatibility" out of thin air. Add enough "compatibilities" together and you have guilt. Even if the individual "compatibilities" are nonsense. It doesn't matter how unrealistic, improbable, or even impossible the argument is. If one can construct a scenario that is compatible with the laws of physics that means Amanda and Raffaele participated in a group orgy murder with some random burgler they didn't know.

To Machiavelli "compatible with the laws of physics" (or at least kinda close to compatible) is equivalent to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". That's what he means when he says he is a believer in "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". All you have to do is construct a scenario that may be possible with a probability of .00001% then you must convict because you can't let a possible murderer on the loose. That would ruin the reputation and careers of all these fine prosecutors, investigators, and judges.

Then write a bunch of tabloid pieces filled with emotionally driven wording to incite the mob of low IQs to give you support, then you have the recipe for a witch hunt.

{Emphasis added to quote.}

The problem with the case is that is not merely the guilters who have the bizarre legal philosophy you point out (bolded and italicized in the quote) but a major portion of the Italian judiciary.

IMO, they use this philosophy to shield the misconduct of the police and prosecutor. This may be a pattern for other Italian criminal cases besides the AK-RS case, for which we have sufficient information to judge.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

Mach, love you man, but to me it seems like you are defending what you believe is the truth. There are some things that you have argued here, that make sense to me, but there are other things you argue that don't make sense to me, but maybe that's just me,

For example, your arguement about not needing proof of Amanda being in the room, comparing Rudy's non-presence in the bathroom. That one makes sense to me.

Your arguement though about the bra clasp having to be destroyed immediately, which was why it wasn't preserved correctly, ok, I'll give you that part (please correct me if I said it wrong) if that's the law in Italy, but that's arguing from that rule of law side, and not from the justice side.

What I also look at (which is more the truth to me, and which I believe what's really dividing us here) is the question, should this be the right thing to do? Should evidence ever be destroyed that quickly? Is that really true justice?

And, THAT is where the biggest difference lies, what kind of truth are we really looking for here,

d

-

Well, I don't really think that this is the problem. Actually, I am afraid the difference lies in our divergent conclusions about innocence or guilt.

The innocentisti have a wide array of beliefs - a series of postulates - which I am confortable defining a conspiracy theory, and those beliefs are built on various grounds; among those grounds, there are beliefs that they have "caught" police or judges in wrongdoings and they can spot suspicious things - among them alleged incompetence, lies, mistakes, violations - and they believe they have thus evidence of malicious railroading.

There are also other grounds, also some belief in plain propaganda narrative, or beliefs which I categorize as prejudicial or racist; but now I'm talking about the beliefs about alleged suspicious things among the Italian authorities that I described.

Now, as for this part of the discourse, there is a difference in perception between me and them. Because I don't see those things as suspicious or evidence of malicious framing (in fact more than that: I see the conspiracy theories as delusional and nonsense).
Which is not the same thing as debating whether the law is right or wrong.

Take the bloody picture affair for example. One thing is to believe that it was unfair or unfortunate that Daily Mail published it without an advisory caption. Another thing is to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy by Italian authorities. And this exactly is what the pro-Knox folks believe.

We're talking about two very different beliefs.

Or to assume that Amanda Knox was targeted by a witch hunt and by a virulent media campaign by Italian media. And this is also among the beliefs of the innocentisti. In fact the pro-Knox folks appear to believe that a virulent media campaign existed in Italy (and there is no evidence of it); that Italian media was focused on her sexual behaviours or private morality (this is also unsupported and false); that the police or prosecution orchestrated such alleged campaign (manifestly unsupported and nonsense); and that an alleged media campaign influenced the judiciary (something also unsupported).

You can see that there are two very different sets of beliefs. Here the divide is not whether points of procedure and legislation are good or bad.
Here it's about true/false assumptions on points of facts and whole perception of reality.

 

[Samson]

It is an important aspect that plays a determinant role and also has to do with the pro defendants propaganda. The fact that evidence is "formed" through an adversarial debate, that it is an "event" and a logical elaboration rather than a physical item, is something that belongs to the principles of every system.

This argument emerged as key topic during Stefanoni's testimony in 2008.
The topic was even addressed by the media in Italy during the early days of the investigation. When the incidente probatorio is applied on some evidence during the investigation, normally this means there is not going to be anything scientific debate about that item at the trial. Stefanoni technically doesn't bring scientific evidence to be discussed, but her testimony about an incidente probatorio.

But the wider principle is that evidence discussion is opened and closed formally, and points arguments and discussions are supposed to be set and made during that window. After that, it is not that discussion can't be re-opened on a item, bit the re-opening of a debate on some evidence needs to be motivated by the party who wants di do it and they need to bring very convincing reasons to do so.

The concept of best evidence is in fact relative, in that it depends on the defence requests.

The observers at an incidente probatorio may observe, but they can also document, make videos, record, put observations in the record, rise objections or demand procedures to be applied or tests to be made. The defence may also object in principle to the incidente probatorio taking place, demand that a judge take part to it and so.

Machiavelli, Amanda and Raffaele stand provisionally convicted of staging a break in. Did the prosecution bring expert witnesses to prove they staged a break in, if so what are their names and qualifications? I could probably find out, but if you have the information it will save time.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I don't really think that this is the problem. Actually, I am afraid the difference lies in our divergent conclusions about innocence or guilt.

The innocentisti have a wide array of beliefs - a series of postulates - which I am confortable defining a conspiracy theory, and those belifs are built on various grounds; among those grounds, there are beliefs that they have "caught" police or judges in wrongdoings and they can spot suspicious things - among them alleged incompetence, lies, mistakes, violations - and they belive they have thus evidence of malicious railroading.

There are also other grounds, also some belief in plain propaganda narrative, or belifs which I categorize as prejudicial or racist; but now I'm talking about the beliefs about alleged suspicious things among the Italian authorities that I described.

Now, as for this part of the discourse, there is a difference in perception between me and them. Because I don't see those things as suspicious or evidence of malicious framing (in fact more than that: I see the conspiracy theories as delusional and nonsense).
Which is not the same thing as debating whether the law is right or wrong.

Take the bloody picture affair for example. One thing is to believe that it was unfair or unfortunate that Daily Mail published it without an advisory caption. Another thing is to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy by Italian authorities. And this is what the ro-Knox folks believe.
It's a very diferent belief.
Or to assume that Amanda Knox was targeted by a witch hunt and by a virulent media campaign by Italian media. And this is also among the beliefs of the innocentisti. In fact the pro-Knox folks appear to believe that a virulent media campaign existed in Italy (and there is no evidence of it); that Italian media was focused on her sexual behaviours or private morality (this is also unsupported and false); that the police or prosecution orchestrated such alleged campaign (manifestly unsupported and nonsense); and that an alleged media campaign influenced the judiciary (something also unsupported).

You can see that there are two very different sets of beliefs. Here the divide is not wethere points of procedure and legislation are good or bad.
Here it's about true/false assumptions on points of facts and whole perception of reality.

Now THIS is the poster I know and love. Machiavelli - the dinner invitation is still open. You choose the wine. I pay. Not in any Italian jurisdiction.

 

[Machiavelli]

Today is not a good day for the case against AK and RS.

It needs an unknown on the internet to manufacture evidence, ah er, a compatibility.

Wow.

I am talking about Planigale's argument. You are trying specious quibble, desperate attempt to make little straw men; you talk like the Renzi administration, let it go.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am talking about Planigale's argument. You are trying specious quibble, desperate attempt to make little straw men; you talk like the Renzi administration, let it go.

Yup, that's it. Desperate. If you hadn't pointed that out I would forever reside in ignorance.

What wine vintage? Something French?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, I don't really think that this is the problem. Actually, I am afraid the difference lies in our divergent conclusions about innocence or guilt.

The innocentisti have a wide array of beliefs - a series of postulates - which I am confortable defining a conspiracy theory, and those beliefs are built on various grounds; among those grounds, there are beliefs that they have "caught" police or judges in wrongdoings and they can spot suspicious things - among them alleged incompetence, lies, mistakes, violations - and they believe they have thus evidence of malicious railroading.

There are also other grounds, also some belief in plain propaganda narrative, or beliefs which I categorize as prejudicial or racist; but now I'm talking about the beliefs about alleged suspicious things among the Italian authorities that I described.

Now, as for this part of the discourse, there is a difference in perception between me and them. Because I don't see those things as suspicious or evidence of malicious framing (in fact more than that: I see the conspiracy theories as delusional and nonsense).
Which is not the same thing as debating whether the law is right or wrong.

Take the bloody picture affair for example. One thing is to believe that it was unfair or unfortunate that Daily Mail published it without an advisory caption. Another thing is to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy by Italian authorities. And this exactly is what the pro-Knox folks believe.

We're talking about two very different beliefs.

Or to assume that Amanda Knox was targeted by a witch hunt and by a virulent media campaign by Italian media. And this is also among the beliefs of the innocentisti. In fact the pro-Knox folks appear to believe that a virulent media campaign existed in Italy (and there is no evidence of it); that Italian media was focused on her sexual behaviours or private morality (this is also unsupported and false); that the police or prosecution orchestrated such alleged campaign (manifestly unsupported and nonsense); and that an alleged media campaign influenced the judiciary (something also unsupported).

You can see that there are two very different sets of beliefs. Here the divide is not wethere points of procedure and legislation are good or bad.
Here it's about true/false assumptions on points of facts and whole perception of reality.

-

Our beliefs, our perceptions, our confirmation biases, yes all that clouds what kind of truth we all look for here,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

-


-

Our beliefs, our perceptions, our confirmation biases, yes all that clouds what kind of truth we all look for here,

d

-

There are, however, rules in logic, just as there are in mathematics.

If one does not follow the rules (and there may be more than one set of equivalent rules or paths) in analyzing a logical problem or a mathematical problem, one is likely to obtain an incorrect (wrong) result.

Furthermore, one must deal with empirical correlations and evidence (as in science) to have a result that describes the real world.

For example, if there are several different possibilities for matching a hypothetical knife to a set of blood stains, the fact that one knife overlies the stains does not indicate that knife made the stains, nor is that knife "compatible" with the stain. A knife whose blade and handle matched the outline suggested by the stains would be compatible, but would not necessarily be the actual knife responsible for the stains, since other knives of those same or similar dimensions would surely exist and one of those could be the murder weapon.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bruising around the wound

Also, wasn't there an extraordinary consistency in the depth of the lesser two knife wounds that suggested the knife had gone in all the way to the hilt? Did that depth correspond to the bloody outline of the knife in the bed sheet? Because if so, as it must, that would also disprove Mach's thesis and photo project.

Carbonjam72,

The length of the knife may also be inferred from the bruising due to the hilt. Nencini's dance around that is a wonder to behold.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are, however, rules in logic, just as there are in mathematics.

If one does not follow the rules (and there may be more than one set of equivalent rules or paths) in analyzing a logical problem or a mathematical problem, one is likely to obtain an incorrect (wrong) result.

Furthermore, one must deal with empirical correlations and evidence (as in science) to have a result that describes the real world.

For example, if there are several different possibilities for matching a hypothetical knife to a set of blood stains, the fact that one knife overlies the stains does not indicate that knife made the stains, nor is that knife "compatible" with the stain. A knife whose blade and handle matched the outline suggested by the stains would be compatible, but would not necessarily be the actual knife responsible for the stains, since other knives of those same or similar dimensions would surely exist and one of those could be the murder weapon.

But it would be sufficient to disprove Planigale's argument postulating that the print shows the handle was covered with blood.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

...Take the bloody picture affair for example. One thing is to believe that it was unfair or unfortunate that Daily Mail published it without an advisory caption. Another thing is to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy by Italian authorities. And this exactly is what the pro-Knox folks believe.

We're talking about two very different beliefs.

Or to assume that Amanda Knox was targeted by a witch hunt and by a virulent media campaign by Italian media. And this is also among the beliefs of the innocentisti. In fact the pro-Knox folks appear to believe that a virulent media campaign existed in Italy (and there is no evidence of it); that Italian media was focused on her sexual behaviours or private morality (this is also unsupported and false); that the police or prosecution orchestrated such alleged campaign (manifestly unsupported and nonsense); and that an alleged media campaign influenced the judiciary (something also unsupported).

You can see that there are two very different sets of beliefs. Here the divide is not wethere points of procedure and legislation are good or bad.
Here it's about true/false assumptions on points of facts and whole perception of reality.

-

I agree about the bathroom picture.

Now, your perception of reality is the rules of evidence for Italy.Everything that happened to Patrick, Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda is a result of the rule of law, except for what Hellman decided and V and C concluded.

I'm not confortable about argueing Italian law, so I have to accede that reality to you except where I see a philosophical conundrum.

I personally believe it's ok for a critical thinker (I prefer "critical thinker" over "skeptic", because many skeptics are rarely ever skeptical of their own beliefs), I think it's ok for a critical thinker to be philosophical.

My biggest philosophical conundrum is everything surrounding the bra-clasp. To me the only real truths there is to that is they found a bra-clasp and they found enough DNA to make it mostly improbable that anyone else except Raffaele had left it and three other samples who's identities were never disclosed.

Everything else is pure speculation, in my opinion, and can be clouded by beliefs, perceptions, and confirmation bias.

It's hard to get through all that, even I sometimes find myself falling into a perception trap,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Carbonjam72,

The length of the knife may also be inferred from the bruising due to the hilt. Nencini's dance around that is a wonder to behold.

There is a small bruise in the wound area, but it is not where the blade penetrated. The point of the blade penetrated at the anterior edge of the wound, while the bruise was 5.5 centimeters distante near the other end of the wound, that is the part where the knife exited the wound, where the "tail" was caused by the cutting edge of the knife.
However at the anterior edge there was another knife-point wound 2 centimeters deep, indicating that the murderer attempted a first blow.
But there is another significant bruise on the right side of the neck: this one exactly around the small wound, caused by a thin knife. Thus, there is an alleged "hilt bruise" also on the right wound. But the right wound is only 4 centimeters deep: by applying yourlogic, we should conclude that the blade on the right side of the neck must have been caused by a knife with a blade no longer than 4 centimeters.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There are, however, rules in logic, just as there are in mathematics.

If one does not follow the rules (and there may be more than one set of equivalent rules or paths) in analyzing a logical problem or a mathematical problem, one is likely to obtain an incorrect (wrong) result.

Furthermore, one must deal with empirical correlations and evidence (as in science) to have a result that describes the real world.

For example, if there are several different possibilities for matching a hypothetical knife to a set of blood stains, the fact that one knife overlies the stains does not indicate that knife made the stains, nor is that knife "compatible" with the stain. A knife whose blade and handle matched the outline suggested by the stains would be compatible, but would not necessarily be the actual knife responsible for the stains, since other knives of those same or similar dimensions would surely exist and one of those could be the murder weapon.

-

Good example about the knife, but the problem with logic (like statistics and probabilities) is that it can be twisted by misusing some it's basic rules.

And, one of its basic rules is you shouldn't assume anything.

I also don't believe that all logic is infallible, It depends on how it's used.

Wasn't it Socrates that proved (with logic) that a man was a bird or something like that?

d

-