Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoulsdonUK said:
Bill!

I am still on lockdown from Mrs C! She is down in Spain with the girls for a week, so who knows I might post again. However, Vixen is keeping folk on their toes, condemnation of Vixens posts whilst feeling the need to respond is wonderful.

Like everyone here, I am impatient to read “legal” decision for the verdict way back in March and as for this slow motion “ECHR slam dunk” case law “woolly mammoth; howzat!, well, erm well!?

I am wondering; is the ECHR waiting for the Italian Supreme Court motivations report Or (nested Or) is the Italian Supreme Court waiting for ECHR.

Dear I say 2017!!
Click to expand...

I, too, am taking a break, but not from the missus. Please say hello to yours upon her return!

I do note the air-quote marks around the word "legal". Yep, this is the CoulsdonUK I remember! As to the questions, no one seems to have a clue.

(So you know, because it is buried deep in the threads you have missed) I am not as optimistic as Numbers that the ECHR is the slam dunk he says it is.

But I don't believe you two have been properly introduced. Numbers, meet my good friend and sometime conflict-mate CoulsdonUK. CoulsdonUK, meet Numbers.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, you wouldn't. You're way out of your depth trying to discuss macroeconomic concepts. Real and nominal concepts only apply to absolute amounts, not to exchange rates between currencies. Stop embarrassing yourself.






No. We weren't. And what the hell are you talking about with "cubed"? You said this:

"Hi Grinder, if it was 0.0000002925 grams, then it would be 0.002925 pico grams. (1gm = 1,000 picograms.)"

(If you didn't already know (which you clearly didn't), the concept of "masses cubed" is not....erm.... recognised within the scientific community. Again, it demonstrates embarrassing scientific ignorance and illiteracy)
Click to expand...

OK, so I messed up the decimal points. I am glad to have made you ecstatic.


Foreign currency is calculated at spot rate, but if you are estimating a value at today's rate, you should factor in inflation on the principal sum.

Long-term f/x is quite complex as it follows a global interest rate vs inflation rate spiral with call/put rates dependent on appreciating and depreciating currencies.
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. Changes in exchange rates purely reflect the underlying economies of the two entities over that time period. They are a factor of myriad macroeconomic effects, of which inflation is one - but inflation applies on both sides of the model.

To use an example to illustrate just how crassly wrong Vixen was: The USD/GBP ($/£) rate in July 2009 happens to be almost exactly the same as it is in July 2015 - 1.55. But by Vixen's bogus "reasoning", we would have had to apply a compounded inflation rate (1.04^5 maybe) to the 1.55 rate of 2009 to arrive at the "correct" rate for 2015. Laughably wrong.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the principal sum. F/x is calculated at spot rate.

Your claim I was referring to the spot rate is either obfuscation on your part, or fabrication. However, more likely it is some kind of point scoring exercise.
 
Vixen said:
OK, so I messed up the decimal points. I am glad to have made you ecstatic.
Click to expand...


No, you got something wrong and then made it even worse when you tried to "correct" yourself (and "correct" me at the same time). But the "cubed" thing really made me smile - the chutzpah is admirable :)



Foreign currency is calculated at spot rate, but if you are estimating a value at today's rate, you should factor in inflation on the principal sum.
Click to expand...


The time value of money is a totally separate concept from foreign exchange rates (and the time progression of such rates). You don't know that, and you've conflated the two.


Long-term f/x is quite complex as it follows a global interest rate vs inflation rate spiral with call/put rates dependent on appreciating and depreciating currencies.
Click to expand...


Now you're conflating forex options markets with the underlying instrument (the forex rate itself). You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. You're just pulling out stuff and regurgitating it without having any decent idea what it actually means. Please stop doing it.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda brought up Patrick of her own volition. She is convicted of a serious felony that carries up to six years imprisonment.

Amanda was chomping at the bit to frame Patrick, even to the extent of privately composing yet another spontaneous statement affirming she saw Patrick in "blurry flashing images". She forcibly made Det Ficarra take it, saying it was a "gift".


IOW She thought the police would be bowled over with gratitude!!! LOL
Click to expand...

The fact that you have avoided all of the questions put to you is telling. The fact that you repeated the above nonsense in order to cover for your inability to answer relevant questions merely underlines your modus operandi.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, you got something wrong and then made it even worse when you tried to "correct" yourself (and "correct" me at the same time). But the "cubed" thing really made me smile - the chutzpah is admirable :)






The time value of money is a totally separate concept from foreign exchange rates (and the time progression of such rates). You don't know that, and you've conflated the two.





Now you're conflating forex options markets with the underlying instrument (the forex rate itself). You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. You're just pulling out stuff and regurgitating it without having any decent idea what it actually means. Please stop doing it.
Click to expand...

Sorry to embarrass you, LondonJohn, but I am almost certainly more of an expert than you are.

You are trying to conceal the fact you are wrong when you snortily derided the idea of calculating a principal sum to today's value. You have also attempted to claim that I said the f/x rate should be compounded, when I said nothing of the sort.
 
Vixen said:
I was referring to the principal sum. F/x is calculated at spot rate.

Your claim I was referring to the spot rate is either obfuscation on your part, or fabrication. However, more likely it is some kind of point scoring exercise.
Click to expand...


No.

For the last time......

There was a reference to applying a 2002 exchange rate to a 2014 sum of money, in order to convert that sum of money to the other currency.

You (wrongly) stated that an compound inflation factor needed to be applied on account of the age of the exchange rate. Not on account of the age of the actual amount of money. That's why you (wrongly) stated that "You have to factor in inflation, say, (1.05)^12." - with the "12" implying the 12 years of time passed.

The money was not 12 years old. The exchange rate was 12 years old. You do not correct for old exchange rates by compounding inflation. You were wrong. And you still are wrong. End of story.
 
Vixen said:
Not even a glass breakage expert would be able to get a 12inch 9kg boulder through the gap of a half-closed shutter, as police found it.
Click to expand...
Where did you get those measurements from?
From the hearing of May 29th, 2009 (page 175)
PM (DOTT. MIGNINI): ipotizzando un passaggio in due tempi, prima il lancio e la rottura del vetro, poi il tentativo di arrampicatura della finestra più alta, ponendoci, immaginando che uno si ponga di fronte a quella ringhiera di legno, lei si è posto il problema delle persiane, della larghezza delle persiane, cioè io lancio una pietra di quasi 4 chili e devo centrare lo spazio interno delle persiane, sa quanto era questo spazio.
Click to expand...
page 148:
DIF (AVV. MAORI): 3 chili nove e novanta, ma lei non ha risposto alla mia domanda, quali sono gli elementi oggettivi in base ai quali voi ritenete che la pietra lanciata esternamente non abbia provocato quel tipo di danno.
Click to expand...
Pictures #111, #112 and #113 from the December 18th "evidence collection" show the "boulder" being bagged...
 
Vixen said:
Sorry to embarrass you, LondonJohn, but I am almost certainly more of an expert than you are.
You are trying to conceal the fact you are wrong when you snortily derided the idea of calculating a principal sum to today's value. You have also attempted to claim that I said the f/x rate should be compounded, when I said nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


:D You 100% definitely are not.
 
LondonJohn said:
No.

For the last time......

There was a reference to applying a 2002 exchange rate to a 2014 sum of money, in order to convert that sum of money to the other currency.

You (wrongly) stated that an compound inflation factor needed to be applied on account of the age of the exchange rate. Not on account of the age of the actual amount of money. That's why you (wrongly) stated that "You have to factor in inflation, say, (1.05)^12." - with the "12" implying the 12 years of time passed.

The money was not 12 years old. The exchange rate was 12 years old. You do not correct for old exchange rates by compounding inflation. You were wrong. And you still are wrong. End of story.
Click to expand...

No, you compound the principal sum to inflation. This obviously has the same effect as rounding up the f/x rate. However, it is the principal sum that is being acted on.

Sorry, as a professional, I often forget lay persons do not grasp the principles so readily or follow the same logic. I should have explained it step by step so that you as a layman wouldn't get confused.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, you compound the principal sum to inflation. This obviously has the same effect as rounding up the f/x rate. However, it is the principal sum that is being acted on.

Sorry, as a professional, I often forget lay persons do not grasp the principals so readily or follow the same logic. I should have explained it step by step so that you as a layman wouldn't get confused.
Click to expand...


Is that the sort of "professional" who messes up a simple relationship between grams and picograms (and then makes up some nonsense about "micrograms cubed" to try to cover it up)? Or the sort of "professional" who confidently states that an imperial measurement of 9lb is a metric measurement of 9kg? With professionals like that, who needs amateurs....? :p

PS: It's "principles". As in "Principles of Macroeconomics". :)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Is that the sort of "professional" who messes up a simple relationship between grams and picograms (and then makes up some nonsense about "micrograms cubed" to try to cover it up)? Or the sort of "professional" who confidently states that an imperial measurement of 9lb is a metric measurement of 9kg? With professionals like that, who needs amateurs....? :p

PS: It's "principles". As in "Principles of Macroeconomics". :)
Click to expand...

There are 2.2 lbs to a kilo, thus the boulder translates at 4kg.

I am glad to have made an old/young man happy with my typo (delete as appropriate).

PS It is "principal" when referring to the original sum of the loan or investment, before interest or tax, or finance charges.

Thus, if you take out a loan of £100K, this becomes the principal sum.

Likewise, the original Perugia forensic invoice of €162K remains the principal sum, regardless of f/x, inflation, interest or cost of capital.

ETA OK so I misspelt, "principles". Gosh!
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
Bill!

I am still on lockdown from Mrs C! She is down in Spain with the girls for a week, so who knows I might post again. However, Vixen is keeping folk on their toes, condemnation of Vixens posts whilst feeling the need to respond is wonderful.

Like everyone here, I am impatient to read “legal” decision for the verdict way back in March and as for this slow motion “ECHR slam dunk” case law “woolly mammoth; howzat!, well, erm well!?

I am wondering; is the ECHR waiting for the Italian Supreme Court motivations report Or (nested Or) is the Italian Supreme Court waiting for ECHR.

Dear I say 2017!!
Click to expand...

Bill Williams said:
I, too, am taking a break, but not from the missus. Please say hello to yours upon her return!

I do note the air-quote marks around the word "legal". Yep, this is the CoulsdonUK I remember! As to the questions, no one seems to have a clue.

(So you know, because it is buried deep in the threads you have missed) I am not as optimistic as Numbers that the ECHR is the slam dunk he says it is.

But I don't believe you two have been properly introduced. Numbers, meet my good friend and sometime conflict-mate CoulsdonUK. CoulsdonUK, meet Numbers.
Click to expand...

Welcome back, CoulsdonUK!

Yes, we are awaiting the slow-motion slam dunk from the ECHR. Since the case has not yet been communicated to Italy, the resolution of the calunnia conviction may be some (1, 2, or 3?) years from now.

And we are awaiting the slow-motion publication of the Marasca panel CSC motivation report on the acquittal verdict. The issue of interest in that, from my point of view, is whether the violations of Italian procedural law in the case will be made explicit, or whether the focus will be primarily on the lack of reliable evidence.
 
Methos said:
Where did you get those measurements from?
From the hearing of May 29th, 2009 (page 175)

page 148:

Pictures #111, #112 and #113 from the December 18th "evidence collection" show the "boulder" being bagged...
Click to expand...

4kg. According to wiki, a boulder is defined as any rock with a diagonal of >12".

We calculated here that this met the criterion, as being >11.8", 12", when rounded up to the nearest inch. ETA Especially as it fragmented as it hit the shutter.

Incredible to imagine anyone scrambling up an 11 foot wall with a boulder in their pocket.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
4kg. According to wiki, a boulder is defined as any rock with a diagonal of >12".

We calculated here that this met the criterion, as being >11.8", 12", when rounded up to the nearest inch. ETA Especially as it fragmented as it hit the shutter.

Incredible to imagine anyone scrambling up an 11 foot wall with a boulder in their pocket.
Click to expand...

Fortunately that was not the case when Rudy broke in on Nov 1st. Note that the climber in this simulation simply had to stand on the bars on the window below and he was already at shoulder height to Filomena's window.

 
I'm a bit confused :confused: Your original statement was:
Vixen said:
Not even a glass breakage expert would be able to get a 12inch 9kg boulder through the gap of a half-closed shutter, as police found it.
Click to expand...
...now you come up with (apart from the boulder definition, which the rock/boulder/dwarf planet - it's getting bigger with every retelling - doesn't fit, a diagonal of around 20 cm is closer to the mark...):
Vixen said:
[...]
Incredible to imagine anyone scrambling up an 11 foot wall with a boulder in their pocket.
Click to expand...
... so what is it? "It's not possible to throw the rock/boulder/dwarf planet through the gap of the shutters." or "It isn't possible to carry the rock/boulder/dwarf planet up to the window to smash it (what about the shutters in that scenario?):confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom