Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Insurance is a good idea. However I'm not sure that a requirement to live in secure supervised accommodation is what students want when they study abroad, and indeed it's likely to impact negatively on their experience. Getting in there with the locals is surely a part of it all.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Secure housing, not necessarily supervised.

Traveling students often stay in youth hostels which typically have some measure of security.

I would think that a university program study-abroad program should offer approved secure housing, which could be among the local population. My opinion, of course.

 

[Bill Williams]

If there is, which I am skeptical, how much do you want to bet that it is an ambiguous phrasing that it tortured into proving guilt?

It's hard to tell because it's a double translation. English to Italian and then back.

Still..... when the DNA evidence and superwitness testimony fell apart in 2011, we were assured there was "all the other evidence."

Apparently not. The haters still are searching for a smoking gun.

 

[Bill Williams]

When the contaminated clasp issue was recently brought up, Machiavelli claimed by his authority alone without backing evidence that it was the clasp that contaminated Stefanoni's glove.

That photo in the preeceeding post is from 054.jpg which was taken only seconds after the clasp was photographed on the floor.

00:34:26.64|053.jpg|15.52.32.80|clasp on floor
00.34.48.48|054.jpg|15.52.54.70|stef holding clasp, flashlight man pointing to it
00.34.51.08| | |stef holding clasp, pointing with pinkie
00.34.53.24|055.jpg|15.52.59.40|stef holding clasp
00.35.02.32| | |stef holding clasp in other hand
00.35.04.92| | |stef holding clasp
00.35.28.64|056.jpg|15.53.34.90|flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.34.68| | |flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.49 | | |<no flash> clasp illuminated by flashlight only?
00.36.27.88|057.jpg|15.54.34.10|Clasp on floor by Y
00.36.35.00| | |Clasp on floor by Y
00.37.20.44|058.jpg|03.55.26.70|Clasp in bag

00:34:42 Stef reaches down to pick up clasp with right hand
00:34:43 Stef holding clasp by hook between thumb and index finger of right hand
00:34:45 Clasp transferred to thumb and index of left hand holding fabric
00:34:46 Clasp turned over and transferred back to right hand
00:34:47 Clasp turned again, transferred back to left hand holding other hook
00:34:48.48 Flash from camera over Stef's sholder

Up to this point, the clasp was only touched by the lower surface of the index finger and thumb. The top surface of Stef's index finger where the debris on the glove is seen in the photo has not contacted the clasp.

So where dose Machiavelli's claim that the clasp contaminated the glove come from? Did Machiavelli make this up himself as a delibrate lie. Or, was this something Machiavelli was told and if so, who told him and why didn't he verify this before posting it as his own statement?

Expect Machiavelli soon to deny he said it.

The reason I've not made mention of his stunning revelation is that I hurt my jaw when it hit the floor.

So, according to Machiavelli, we don't need to worry about the glove contaminating the hook. The whole clasp came pre-contaminated!!!!!

You cannot make this up.

 

[Strozzi]

The US is not in a position of lecturing Italy about human rights. Nobody in Italy cares about what American institutions think about human rights in Italy.
And you may be equally concerned about what Europeans may think about US handling of human rights and international laws.

Mach, I am not proposing that one country "lecture" another about human rights. The US has many instances where local, state, and federal authorities violate the rights of others, and I and almost all participants on this board would readily criticize officials and organizations for it.

US law requires that the US Department of State annually assess human rights conditions in all other countries. And I welcome other countries including Italy conduct and release assessments of the U.S. as well. Sunshine is a helpful restraint on malfeasance. The Internet and cell phone cameras give more and more people the ability to make public what authorities prefer remain hidden.

If the Perugia police had recorded their interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda many issues would be clear and the authorities, including the court system, could have solved this case a long time ago without harming Italy the way they have done.

Many Italians understand that Raffaele and Amanda are the innocent victims of the police, police lab, prosecutors, and some judges involved in this case, in spite of the control the authorities have had over the information and evidence flow. Many Italian scientists know how inept and corrupt Stefanoni's forensic evidence collection, processing, analysis, and interpretation is in this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli:

Another point: Conti and Vecchiotti were not independent. They were dependant from a court, the work of which was completely discredited, in the most cathing way by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Cassazione even censured C&V's intellectual dishonesty explicitly - in the event someone still needed this clarification.

Would you please remind us about this, Mach? I think I missed this.

This is also a rhetorical technique Machiavelli uses. The claim I made was that all independent analysts trashed Stefanoni.

The response is about a phantom factoid Chieffi was supposed to have made about C&V.

I guess this is Machiavelli's way of conceding the larger point by saying a rhetorical, "oh look! Squirrel!!!!"

 

[Desert Fox]

It's hard to tell because it's a double translation. English to Italian and then back.

Still..... when the DNA evidence and superwitness testimony fell apart in 2011, we were assured there was "all the other evidence."

Apparently not. The haters still are searching for a smoking gun.

My first question of course is "where is the original?"

 

[Desert Fox]

Mach, I am not proposing that one country "lecture" another about human rights. The US has many instances where local, state, and federal authorities violate the rights of others, and I and almost all participants on this board would readily criticize officials and organizations for it.

US law requires that the US Department of State annually assess human rights conditions in all other countries. And I welcome other countries including Italy conduct and release assessments of the U.S. as well. Sunshine is a helpful restraint on malfeasance. The Internet and cell phone cameras give more and more people the ability to make public what authorities prefer remain hidden.
If the Perugia police had recorded their interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda many issues would be clear and the authorities, including the court system, could have solved this case a long time ago without harming Italy the way they have done.

Many Italians understand that Raffaele and Amanda are the innocent victims of the police, police lab, prosecutors, and some judges involved in this case, in spite of the control the authorities have had over the information and evidence flow. Many Italian scientists know how inept and corrupt Stefanoni's forensic evidence collection, processing, analysis, and interpretation is in this case.

I too welcome other countries investigating the United States on human rights conditions. Recently been in a discussion with a person in the Canadian crown office and there are some pretty unsettling things about the Canadian legal system.

In R. v. Singh, the defendant tried to invoke silence eighteen times but one cannot stop the police from badgering you. Basically, you cannot end the interview. You can also talk to a lawyer before a police interrogation but he /she cannot be with you during the interrogation.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I guess my post title reference to 2 of the authors of the Wiley piece and Ep21 was too vague or complex*.

I will go with "too vague" since I have no idea what the hell you mean by Ep21 and presumably none of the authors were attacked by a badger. You are being intentionally vague because you cannot address empirical facts with anything concrete, either because you lack the intelligence or any real evidence (both? -- and I am being very generous by including a question mark there).

I will l simplify. That ‘Wiley’ stuff was discussed ad nauseam 4 + yrs ago and was one of the foundation docs that formed part of the ‘Precise & Early ToD.

Haha. So you're "simplifying" by saying you proved scientific facts wrong 4+ years ago! By simply "discussing" it, no less! What gastric emptying experiments did you do, platonov?

I’m not reahashing 4 yr old stuff with you because you just found it now and refuse to read the thread even when given links. Start with the 25% correction and work back - or don’t. Truthers and noobs to this thread might have been indulged in that manner on this board but not by me.

I have already read the "25% correction" post. LondonJohn is giving a 25% margin of safety for errors in measurements, to your side. He is giving you an extra 25% window to fit your hypothesis into! And your hypothesis still doesn't make sense nor fit with the known facts. Why are you linking me to posts which prove you wrong, while at the same time pretending they support your ToD arguments? You really don't understand statistics at all, do you?

Nope. I will pay Rolfe the compliment of assuming that she understood what she was talking about here. It really is trivial.
If she can defend her argument it might become clearer to the rest of the board.

*Which doesn’t auger well.

Yes, it appears Rolfe knows what she is talking about in her post (though I hadn't considered the state of digestion of the food -- this is a completely separate argument from the t lag data). You really don't understand any of this, do you? Quick, time for a vague incomprehensible quip about a badger!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Now, you made a point. That has to do in fact with my being elliptical in my responses, I omit things; I made the example of lying but in fact the concept of the witnesses not being on trial extends beyond. I thought that it was clear, albeit implicit, that this "not being on trial" is a concept itself, the case of lying is a case within the set of possible cases that I specified in other posts, yet I point out not being on trial as a concept itself, especially when referred to expert witnesses, a concept that is not even the same thing of the question about who has a burden of proof.

wut?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

<snip>

This is something you apparently don't understand, insofar you mistake this as I it was a rule saying that the defence cannot question the credibility of the accusation witness. No, the "not being on trial" doesn't mean this. It means that a discussion about the experts may not replace a discussion about the evidence. Because there is no zero sum game, you can't replace a disputing about evidence and defendant with a disputing about the expert or the procedures or about something else.
The evidence findings must be dealt with directly.
<snip>

In other words, you must never question the evidence. If they produce any evidence whatsoever, it is iron clad. period.

ETA: because of course their experts are going to say it is iron clad. They are not going to produce an expert who says the evidence might not be any good FFS. Ergo, if you cannot question the experts, you cannot question the evidence, therefore - guilty as charged. Why does Italy even bother with trials?

 

[Dan O.]

Irrespective of the presence of dirt on the finger indicated, the glove on the finger holding the clasp is SPLIT! This is a complete no-no. The minute you realise a glove is split, you must change it.

As a personal observation, I'd say that the location of that split is consistent with its being caused by the same glove being worn for longer than they're supposed to be worn for, and thus splitting over the fingernail. They go like this when you've been handling a lot of things with the same glove.

Rolfe, which finger in that photo are you claiming has a split in the glove? I know this has come up before but I do not see any split. I see where there is a contrast change where the glove is in contact with the fingernail underneath but I don't see any split in any of the photos or the video.

 

[Desert Fox]

Rolfe, which finger in that photo are you claiming has a split in the glove? I know this has come up before but I do not see any split. I see where there is a contrast change where the glove is in contact with the fingernail underneath but I don't see any split in any of the photos or the video.

See this is one of the important differences between the pro guilt and pro innocence party. You never see any of the pro guilt side on this forum question each others arguments.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, which finger in that photo are you claiming has a split in the glove? I know this has come up before but I do not see any split. I see where there is a contrast change where the glove is in contact with the fingernail underneath but I don't see any split in any of the photos or the video.

The uppermost finger on the hand to the left of the picture.

I can see doubtful areas on a couple of other fingers, which I looked at carefully, but these are just colour changes caused by the slightly-too-large gloves being in uneven contact with the fingers. I do feel sure about the glove being split over the fingernail of the upper left finger though, unless you can explain to me how I am mistaken.

 

[platonov]

This explains the Cartwheel confusion

I will go with "too vague" since I have no idea what the hell you mean by Ep21 and presumably none of the authors were attacked by a badger. You are being intentionally vague because you cannot address empirical facts with anything concrete, either because you lack the intelligence or any real evidence (both? -- and I am being very generous by including a question mark there).



Haha. So you're "simplifying" by saying you proved scientific facts wrong 4+ years ago! By simply "discussing" it, no less! What gastric emptying experiments did you do, platonov?



I have already read the "25% correction" post. LondonJohn is giving a 25% margin of safety for errors in measurements, to your side. He is giving you an extra 25% window to fit your hypothesis into! And your hypothesis still doesn't make sense nor fit with the known facts. Why are you linking me to posts which prove you wrong, while at the same time pretending they support your ToD arguments? You really don't understand statistics at all, do you?

I’m not reahashing 4 yr old stuff with you because you just found it now and refuse to read the thread even when given links. Start with the 25% correction and work back - or don’t. Truthers and noobs to this thread might have been indulged in that manner on this board but not by me.

Yes, it appears Rolfe knows what she is talking about in her post (though I hadn't considered the state of digestion of the food -- this is a completely separate argument from the t lag data). You really don't understand any of this, do you? Quick, time for a vague incomprehensible quip about a badger!

Indeed it is – the penny finally drops

Why would you? - it was merely the point of Rolfe's post and my response

 

[MDDVS]

I will go with "too vague" since I have no idea what the hell you mean by Ep21 and presumably none of the authors were attacked by a badger. You are being intentionally vague because you cannot address empirical facts with anything concrete, either because you lack the intelligence or any real evidence (both? -- and I am being very generous by including a question mark there).



Haha. So you're "simplifying" by saying you proved scientific facts wrong 4+ years ago! By simply "discussing" it, no less! What gastric emptying experiments did you do, platonov?



I have already read the "25% correction" post. LondonJohn is giving a 25% margin of safety for errors in measurements, to your side. He is giving you an extra 25% window to fit your hypothesis into! And your hypothesis still doesn't make sense nor fit with the known facts. Why are you linking me to posts which prove you wrong, while at the same time pretending they support your ToD arguments? You really don't understand statistics at all, do you?



Yes, it appears Rolfe knows what she is talking about in her post (though I hadn't considered the state of digestion of the food -- this is a completely separate argument from the t lag data). You really don't understand any of this, do you? Quick, time for a vague incomprehensible quip about a badger!

Here is the plot showing the data in that paper. I'd like Platonov to explain how to fit a Tlag greater than 3 hours. Note in particular:

a) These Tlag times are greater than the actual time is takes for the stomach emptying to start because they correpsond to the time until the emptying speed reaches a maximum (i.e. some time after the emptying starts).

b) The Tlag value and its spread are lower for people with Meredith's age.

 

[codyjuneau]

Example: at cross-examination, Stefanoni is shown a video, a video her own police took, which shows her potentially handling the bra-hooks:

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd64bdf2e8d.jpg[/URL]
​

Bongiorno asks her if this is her handling the hooks with obviously dirty gloves. At trial, Stefanoni tells a partial truth - she can neither confirm nor deny she'd handled them.

Irrespective of the presence of dirt on the finger indicated, the glove on the finger holding the clasp is SPLIT! This is a complete no-no. The minute you realise a glove is split, you must change it.

As a personal observation, I'd say that the location of that split is consistent with its being caused by the same glove being worn for longer than they're supposed to be worn for, and thus splitting over the fingernail. They go like this when you've been handling a lot of things with the same glove.

.
Where is the split, I can only make out creases?

Someone else, I can't remember who, observed that when latex gloves are worn for quite a while they break down and get a droopy, clingy fit similar to the glove on the right in the photo. That is my experience also.

Cody
.

 

[Rolfe]

That's not the bit I'm looking at. You get that poor fit if you use a glove that's a bit too big, and some people do that because they don't like pulling them on tight. I can see these areas and it's obvious enough.

Look at the nail of the top left finger, I think it's the forefinger of the left hand. It's split. I've seen this all along and I've never understood why everyone was dementing on about the dirt without mentioning the split.

 

[Welshman]

Now, you made a point. That has to do in fact with my being elliptical in my responses, I omit things; I made the example of lying but in fact the concept of the witnesses not being on trial extends beyond. I thought that it was clear, albeit implicit, that this "not being on trial" is a concept itself, the case of lying is a case within the set of possible cases that I specified in other posts, yet I point out not being on trial as a concept itself, especially when referred to expert witnesses, a concept that is not even the same thing of the question about who has a burden of proof.

This "not being on trial" means, I would say it like that, that the trial may not be seen as a zero Su game between accusation witness/ police / expert on one side and defendant on another. That means, you may not turn the trial against a defendant into a trial about whether the investigation was good, or whether an expert is competent or if the investigators are skilled or trustful.

This is something you apparently don't understand, insofar you mistake this as I it was a rule saying that the defence cannot question the credibility of the accusation witness. No, the "not being on trial" doesn't mean this. It means that a discussion about the experts may not replace a discussion about the evidence. Because there is no zero sum game, you can't replace a disputing about evidence and defendant with a disputing about the expert or the procedures or about something else.
The evidence findings must be dealt with directly.

The whole pro-Knox discourse intends to replace this setting, and deal with the evidence indirectly. Instead of explaining Sollecito's DNA and Meredith's DNA finding on the knife through some event and demonstrate how this is probable, they want to discuss about Stefanoni and any dismissing of the evidence should follow only as a stated and generic consequence of this indirect argumentation.

Another point: Conti and Vecchiotti were not independent. They were dependant from a court, the work of which was completely discredited, in the most cathing way by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Cassazione even censured C&V's intellectual dishonesty explicitly - in the event someone still needed this clarification.

There is a question Machiavelli will not answer. If C and V were such incompetent buffoons, why has Machiavelli or anyone else not written a detailed rebuttal of their report?

 

[Rolfe]

That's not the bit I'm looking at. You get that poor fit if you use a glove that's a bit too big, and some people do that because they don't like pulling them on tight. I can see these areas and it's obvious enough.

Look at the nail of the top left finger, I think it's the forefinger of the left hand. It's split. I've seen this all along and I've never understood why everyone was dementing on about the dirt without mentioning the split.

OK, I recant. I blew the photo up and what I thought was a split is actually an illusion caused by a thread from the torn clasp crossing the end of the finger at a point where a split would naturally occur if you put your nail through the glove.

As you were.

 

[LondonJohn]

I note with interest that Andrea Vogt - the author of a recent tweet that was shockingly racist, ill-informed, partisan and inflammatory in its nature - has had the chutzpah to pretend she's cut from the same journalistic cloth as Woodward and Bernstein in her latest self-published online piece (good luck with that getting picked up as paid copy, Andrea!) which contains a small number of totally anodyne FOI communications from the US stations in Rome. She has the gall to have a prod at the news outlets reporting Knox's apparent engagement. I'm guessing she might just be a teeny bit bitter at not being able to get paid for anything she says or writes on the Knox case any longer.

But anyway, well done Arn-dray-ahh, you ignoble, mendacious, partisan hypocrite, you.......