Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Great - you get to move one row down up here in the cheap seats.

You still have not answered my question about perhaps showing that he was unduly biased, aside from the genetic fallacy hand waving him away because of his associations?

Do you have any evidence that he went off the rails?

Bill he said he came to the conclusion the kids were innocent and volunteered to produce reports/studies that would help exonerate them. I never said his work was good, bad or ugly.

I said that his characterization of the Diaz case was not from a neutral party. He has no expertise in the Diaz fire reports. His use of the Nina fire report and saying it was great work has no value. He's FOA IIP.

 

[Grinder]

I've been in two houses that suffered serious fire damage. I am by no means an expert on this subject Grinder and I'm not representing myself as one. As for a wide range of experiences....I'm not sure I would say that. My mom's house suffered serious fire damage as did a good friend's home.

But if anything, it is you that is the one representing yourself as the person who understands and is an expert about everything. I think your logic is just too certain for my tastes. I KNOW I don't understand completely what happened from the descriptions of what happened. You're the one who expects people to be precise in their language. But if you're honest about this you would acknowledge that people are generally not as precise as you would like them to be. I certainly don't expect them to be.

Were the items found that were surprising flammable if put over a lamp? How did these fires start?
You make a anecdotal remark that makes no sense and when challenged to attack me. There are many mistakes in her book. Did you bother to look up the temperature in Perugia Nov. 1 -2 when she claims it was in the mid forties when the weather link says mid fifties?

Did you read where she says the loot was found at the nursery and then says it was at the police station.

I'm skeptical that the fire was started by a scarf that did severe damage and yet the flammable scarf could be identified as the igniter of the blaze.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill he said he came to the conclusion the kids were innocent and volunteered to produce reports/studies that would help exonerate them. I never said his work was good, bad or ugly.

I said that his characterization of the Diaz case was not from a neutral party. He has no expertise in the Diaz fire reports. His use of the Nina fire report and saying it was great work has no value. He's FOA IIP.

We are agreed - you, in fact, said that.

 

[acbytesla]

If you go look at what Tesla reported quite a while ago Nina said Diaz was reading off a police report and that Nina would see if she could find it. Alas nada.



And how would you know either is available? Please try hard to think about a fire in a mid sized town that resulted supposedly from a burglar starting it, killing a cat and severely damaging the house and yet not one word found on the web. I've looked, I'm sure Tesla and others here have and of course you wouldn't respond without checking the web.



I demonstrated that she has errors (temp) and saying the pack was opened at the nursery and then saying it was opened first at the police station. Maybe KrissyG did her editing as well. The fire story doesn't hang together. A fire doesn't start from a scarf and almost destroy a three story house and leave bits of the scarf that show that's how it started. Mary thought maybe smoke damage but no severe and three years.



I didn't ask it was Tesla but it remains the case that a journalist should not shrink from providing sources. I've dialed up NY Times reporters and had discussion about a story. I talk with local reporters all the time and they are happy to give background.



Cough, cough do I have allergies? No there is a straw man in the forum. Tesla asking one reasonable question after three years the book was out isn't remotely similar to debating the PGP leaders.

Your self esteem issues are sad. There is no reason a regular person can't ask about sources.



Tesla didn't insult her and if you're implying I did that could only be if she read here. If so, she can produce the sourcing material.

Do you ever actually read the source material or do you just reply on the compiler sites?



If you read upstream you would find that I thought Diaz probably existed and had some sort of fire event but that Nina had exaggerated it and framed the story to fit with the Rudi crime wave meme. You don't read the original stuff and base most everything on you authority figures. Sad.

I just went back and read my exchange with Nina. In one of the emails she said

"I have the transcript of our interview w Mrs Madu Diaz in front of me. *It's long, and in it she reads from the police report and the fire report, in addition to talking at length about what happened to her house." She was quite concerned with what I might do with the transcript and appeared to be insulted that anyone might think she embellished her story. I tied to assure her that I didn't doubt her just that I wanted it for the Wiki. I think she was concerned that she would be putting herself in the middle of a social media war and not knowing me didn't help.

Her last email to me suggested that she might follow up and write something since there was still interest. But she never sent me the transcript or ever wrote anything more. Maybe I should send her another email. This exchange took place a year ago April.

 

[acbytesla]

Were the items found that were surprising flammable if put over a lamp? How did these fires start?
You make a anecdotal remark that makes no sense and when challenged to attack me. There are many mistakes in her book. Did you bother to look up the temperature in Perugia Nov. 1 -2 when she claims it was in the mid forties when the weather link says mid fifties?

Did you read where she says the loot was found at the nursery and then says it was at the police station.

I'm skeptical that the fire was started by a scarf that did severe damage and yet the flammable scarf could be identified as the igniter of the blaze.

Your skepticism may be warranted. I just don't know. My friend's house which was severely burned had lots of stuff on the floor that you would have thought would have burned including paper that weren't . All I'm saying Grinder, is I certainly wouldn't come to the "conclusion " that someone was lying because of this.

 

[davefoc]

...Maybe I should send her another email. This exchange took place a year ago April.

I share your reluctance to contact people that are significantly more well known than myself. I feel like I am intruding in an asymmetrical way with their time. I get something if they respond and they have little to gain so I haven't done it very often. It was suggested up thread that somebody in Italy could just go to the police station and ask to get a copy of the record. The existence of a police record of the fire and thefts might even convince Grinder.

 

[Vixen]

My next question, after asking if the alleged hair was collected and then lost or just photographed but never collected, is how was the material determined to be (human) hair and not fiber (or feline hair). What test was done on it?

Of course, if no test was done then I must conclude that it is unknown matter, possibly fiber or feline since we know Meredith was to take care of a cat that day.

It was a black cat, was it not?

 

[davefoc]

...

I'm skeptical that the fire was started by a scarf that did severe damage and yet the flammable scarf could be identified as the igniter of the blaze.

On part of this I think you are wrong to be skeptical. For something to burn it needs oxygen. Ever seen the results of a very hot beach fire? Sometimes there's a piece of wood that one would have thought would have burned but it doesn't. Was it too wet? Did it fall in such a way that it couldn't draw enough oxygen to continue to burn? Whatever the reason, stuff in even severe fires is not always completely destroyed even when the stuff is close to the point of ignition of which the scarf may or may not have been involved.

You might be right that it is unlikely that putting a scarf on top of a lamp would ignite a fire. I'm not sure on that. It is in the range of plausible to me for the reasons I put forth up thread. And even if the fire investigators were wrong about the source of the ignition, it doesn't mean that the story about the fire is wrong completely or even substantively with regard to the discussion of it in this thread.

 

[RoseMontague]

An innocent mistake. By oversight, he omitted to contact Ms Pruett first. This is to do with courtesy, not plagiarism.

Nick Van der Leek has been completely taken aback at the level of sheer hostility he has encountered. He and his co-author, Lisa Wilson have written extensively about Oscar Pistorius and Jody Arias, so you can see they have no special interest in persecuting individuals. Hey, they are normal decent people.

IMHO they are shell-shocked by the reaction of Pro-Knox supporters. If you look at the facts, there are plenty of legitimate questions any normally curious person would ask.

From what I have seen, they took a position of guilt without researching the actual facts of the case. If they had questions they should have asked them before they took such a position.

 

[acbytesla]

I share your reluctance to contact people that are significantly more well known than myself. I feel like I am intruding in an asymmetrical way with their time. I get something if they respond and they have little to gain so I haven't done it very often. It was suggested up thread that somebody in Italy could just go to the police station and ask to get a copy of the record. The existence of a police record of the fire and thefts might even convince Grinder.

I think we exchanged 6 emails with Nina. I was surprised she replied even to the first. Frankly, I was embarrassed asking for it as I could hardly justify the reason in my own mind. It felt like she thought I was acting out a ruse of some sort. That I was some closet guilter that would use the information against her or Ms Diaz.

To continue to ask after the first few emails seemed wrong so I stopped.

 

[carbonjam72]

I just went back and read my exchange with Nina. In one of the emails she said

"I have the transcript of our interview w Mrs Madu Diaz in front of me. *It's long, and in it she reads from the police report and the fire report, in addition to talking at length about what happened to her house." She was quite concerned with what I might do with the transcript and appeared to be insulted that anyone might think she embellished her story. I tied to assure her that I didn't doubt her just that I wanted it for the Wiki. I think she was concerned that she would be putting herself in the middle of a social media war and not knowing me didn't help.

Her last email to me suggested that she might follow up and write something since there was still interest. But she never sent me the transcript or ever wrote anything more. Maybe I should send her another email. This exchange took place a year ago April.

It sounds like a respectful exchange, I think you were lucky to have it, and Nina was very gracious to engage.

Requesting her work product is an understandable request from our POV. But from hers, thats how she makes her living. Why should she share with anyone who isn't in a position to reciprocate? Again, she's professional, ie does it for a living.

Plus, consider the downside. Nina has walked on eggshells in interviews to avoid provoking the highly litigious Mignini, and others. How does she know who she's giving it to, or how it would be used?

Based on her reported interactions with PQ (who intimated he would stalk her kids), and other guiltards, I'm amazed she replied at all.

Also amazing to me is the sense of entitlement among some up here in the peanut gallery.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think we exchanged 6 emails with Nina. I was surprised she replied even to the first. Frankly, I was embarrassed asking for it as I could hardly justify the reason in my own mind. It felt like she thought I was acting out a ruse of some sort. That I was some closet guilter that would use the information against her or Ms Diaz.

To continue to ask after the first few emails seemed wrong so I stopped.

I can understand her reluctance. Just because Grinder doubts the basics of the story does not mean anything. It would be nice to have confirmation but I think we have a situation where Nina actually did some original reporting.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I have said before, I am an independent, thinking person. Show me any evidence the kids are innocent and I'll be their greatest champion.

It doesn't work that way. People here as well as the UK and Italy don't have to prove their innocence. You have brought forward a lot of what you thought were facts that turned out not to be. Where is your proof they are guilty?

Exactly. This is fundamentally what guilters do not get. They really need to think on this, especially when they actually neglect to notice that they've actually said it.

 

[carbonjam72]

I share your reluctance to contact people that are significantly more well known than myself. I feel like I am intruding in an asymmetrical way with their time. I get something if they respond and they have little to gain so I haven't done it very often. It was suggested up thread that somebody in Italy could just go to the police station and ask to get a copy of the record. The existence of a police record of the fire and thefts might even convince Grinder.

Not sure I'd recommend that Dave. You might find yourself on the wrong end of an illegal interrogation, or a friendly lesson in Italian civics in the land of the mafia.

 

[Grinder]

I can understand her reluctance. Just because Grinder doubts the basics of the story does not mean anything. It would be nice to have confirmation but I think we have a situatiolln where Nina actually did some original reporting.

Yes very original.

 

[Vixen]

From what I have seen, they took a position of guilt without researching the actual facts of the case. If they had questions they should have asked them before they took such a position.

I cannot speak for others, but from what I can see, Lisa Wilson takes the position of "Juror 13" when writing up a case. Nick Van der Leek has a technique of "thin-slicing". This is similar to content-analysis in the psychology of advertising, or literary criticism, where you take a passage and critically examine it line by line, to wring out the meaning.

IOW it is not "taking a position of guilt", it is starting off with the Null Hypothesis.

I knew very little about Jody Arias, as it has not been reported here in England.

I clicked on a youtube interview of her and was stunned by her "I'm a sweet little girl" demeanour and tone of voice.

On downloading _Vanity_ by Lisa Wilson about Jody Arias, straight away Lisa dealt with this very issue.

It's a personal take, in a way. Why should it bother you?

 

[Bill Williams]

I cannot speak for others, but from what I can see, Lisa Wilson takes the position of "Juror 13" when writing up a case. Nick Van der Leek has a technique of "thin-slicing". This is similar to content-analysis in the psychology of advertising, or literary criticism, where you take a passage and critically examine it line by line, to wring out the meaning.

IOW it is not "taking a position of guilt", it is starting off with the Null Hypothesis.

I knew very little about Jody Arias, as it has not been reported here in England.

I clicked on a youtube interview of her and was stunned by her "I'm a sweet little girl" demeanour and tone of voice.

On downloading _Vanity_ by Lisa Wilson about Jody Arias, straight away Lisa dealt with this very issue.

It's a personal take, in a way. Why should it bother you?

LOL!

"Thin-slicing" is a term which means making very quick decisions with very minimal amounts of information. Sounds like van der Leek's book!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-slicing

The term thin-slicing means making very quick decisions with minimal amounts of information. Thinking has always been described as a conscious effort. Artist Henri Cartier-Bresson called thinking a "decisive moment" of consciousness, but in reality thin-slicing is an unconscious behavior.​

This is a great technique for assessing guilt an innocence! Another term for it is confirmation bias. LOL.

 

[davefoc]

Vixen,
I have reposted your claim about the mixed blood and the responses for your convenience, if you'd like to respond to the posts that have been made disputing your claim that mixed blood was found in Knox and Kercher's bathroom sink.

Was mixed blood found in Kercher and Knox's bathroom sink? You claim that this is so and if it was it would be a serious piece of evidence against Knox, particularly if the police found wounds on her that might have been acquired during the murder.

...So, since you are posting this morning, are you going to admit that you were grotesquely wrong about the expected distribution of DNA in the cottage?

I'll come back to you.

You seem to have expressed an intent to respond to the evidence that has been forth disputing your claim that mixed blood was found in Knox and Kercher's bathroom sink. Do you intend to respond to the posts that have been made disputing your claim?

This is what you posted earlier:

...

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

This is a collection of some of the responses:

...
How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.

In the large bathroom there would likely be mixed traces collectable in the same manner as in the small bathroom of all the flat mates in various combinations.

You are absolutely right about the absence of a proper data set.

If Kercher's blood had been rinsed off in the large bathroom instead and had been sampled mixed with Romanelli and Mezzetti's DNA, would that mean we would have two more murderers? Is it possible, according to you, for a mixture to occur for innocent reasons?

What I'm trying to get at is that we know people leave their DNA in their own bathrooms - you would agree with this right? So, why do you necessarily infer from the mixture and given the collection techniques employed that it is in fact one sample? Why can't it also be reasonably possible that:

1) Amanda's DNA was already in situ and Kercher's blood was deposited on top of it
2) The two samples were not mixed in situ but mixed in the collection?

Vixen, did you notice this post by Dan O.? Do you understand his point? I believe that his point was that only Kercher and Knox shared the sink in question. How would that fact affect your calculation?

Have you considered a hypothetical situation like this? There is a murder in Joe's house. The police sample traces of blood found in his bathroom sink and find that there is DNA from the murder victim mixed with his DNA. The police characterize this result as mixed blood being found in his bathroom sink and further claim it is evidence of his guilt. Can you see a problem with this characterization of the evidence?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
I have reposted your claim about the mixed blood and the responses for your convenience, if you'd like to respond to the posts that have been made disputing your claim that mixed blood was found in Knox and Kercher's bathroom sink.

Was mixed blood found in Kercher and Knox's bathroom sink? You claim that this is so and if it was it would be a serious piece of evidence against Knox, particularly if the police found wounds on her that might have been acquired during the murder.





You seem to have expressed an intent to respond to the evidence that has been forth disputing your claim that mixed blood was found in Knox and Kercher's bathroom sink. Do you intend to respond to the posts that have been made disputing your claim?

This is what you posted earlier:



This is a collection of some of the responses:










Have you considered a hypothetical situation like this? There is a murder in Joe's house. The police sample traces of blood found in his bathroom sink and find that there is DNA from the murder victim mixed with his DNA. The police characterize this result as mixed blood being found in his bathroom sink and further claim it is evidence of his guilt. Can you see a problem with this characterization of the evidence?

I haven't forgotten. Thanks for summarising. I'll get back soonest.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's what top silks (attorneys) and judges do all the time. They come to a case fresh at the hearing itself, have to speed read witness statements, jot down notes and come to a judgment ASAP. In addition, they often have to justify their reasoning if a party asks for it.

Thin-slicing is what professionals are trained to do.

That's people examining the case documents, transcripts, evidence and testimonies of witnesses and experts. Not somebody thin-slicing news reports and pro-guilt websites.