Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

You're aware that scientists (real scientists, that is, not the ones you believe exist) routinely share data, experimental results and current thinking, right? Your tellingly-pejorative description of Hampikian "bragging" of having "fed" C&V their results is as ignorant as it is ridiculous. Real scientists welcome relevant data being provided to them, in order to better inform their own thinking. Real scientists use their own critical faculties and powers of scientific reason to evaluate data and conclusions that are provided to them, in order to assess whether those data/conclusions are a) relevant to their own work, b) robust and reliable, and c) likely to lead them to better, more robust results and conclusions of their own. You wouldn't know this, of course, being a non-scientist who doesn't understand all this properly.

Oh, and "ultra vires" is a doctrinal condition. One cannot talk of something being done "ultra vires of the court". If you insist on continuing with pretentious Latin legal phrases (rather than, for example in this instance, simply writing something like "outside the powers/remit of the court"), please ensure you use them in the correct way - it's doubly embarrassing if you don't. Thanks!

Please don't advertise your ignorance, Vecchiotti & Conti did act outside of their official position. They should have applied to the court. They had no right to make their own decision as to what they would test and what not.


Well I am a bachelor of science with honours, so I must have done something scientific.

Likewise, the rest of your post is also full of smoke and mirrors.

 

[sept79]

Vixen, you're aware that scientists (real scientists, that is, not the ones you believe exist) routinely share data, experimental results and current thinking, right? Your tellingly-pejorative description of Hampikian "bragging" of having "fed" C&V their results is as ignorant as it is ridiculous. Real scientists welcome relevant data being provided to them, in order to better inform their own thinking. Real scientists use their own critical faculties and powers of scientific reason to evaluate data and conclusions that are provided to them, in order to assess whether those data/conclusions are a) relevant to their own work, b) robust and reliable, and c) likely to lead them to better, more robust results and conclusions of their own. You wouldn't know this, of course, being a non-scientist who doesn't understand all this properly.
.
.
.

Unlike Stefanoni who refused and still refuses to show/share her work . . . . .

 

[Stacyhs]

Please don't advertise your ignorance, Vecchiotti & Conti did act outside of their official position. They should have applied to the court. They had no right to make their own decision as to what they would test and what not.


Well I am a bachelor of science with honours, so I must have done something scientific.Likewise, the rest of your post is also full of smoke and mirrors.

Not necessarily. Some universities grant bachelors of science to traditionally bachelor of arts subjects, the London School of Economics being one. "Northwestern University's School of Communication grants B.Sc. degrees in all of its programs of study, including theater, dance, and radio/television/film. "

My daughter has a bachelor of science (magna cum laude) in computers. That doesn't make her a DNA, biology, or chemistry expert. Although she does know a heck of a lot about paleontology.

 

[toto]

I signed up temporarily to Netflix (as I already have amazon prime), saw the film, wrote a review - which has had more than 8,000 'impressions' within about three days now, when I tweeted it - have been watching Making a Murderer whilst I'm there.

It's interesting to see how the Innocence Project lawyers spin it.

At one point one of them says, 'Avery can't possibly have anything to do with the disappearance of Theresa Halbach, you saw how he sobbed on camera.'

As if killers don't sob for the tv cameras (Tracey Andrews, the guy who had his granddaughter's body in his attic, the guy who killed six of his own children in a house fire, to get revenge on an ex-) . They all wept like no tomorrow.

I have only seen two episodes and am already sceptical of the claim, 'police set him up'.

I think most viewers will come to the view that Amanda's distress in the film is real. And I sympathise with the sense of disquiet you probably had when watching that just possibly you got it wrong. I am interested that, unprompted, it is the emotions of Amanda you allude to, because it was Pisa who I was talking about. But of course it is the (lack of) evidence that matters.

 

[Bill Williams]

You're aware that scientists (real scientists, that is, not the ones you believe exist) routinely share data, experimental results and current thinking, right? Your tellingly-pejorative description of Hampikian "bragging" of having "fed" C&V their results is as ignorant as it is ridiculous. Real scientists welcome relevant data being provided to them, in order to better inform their own thinking. Real scientists use their own critical faculties and powers of scientific reason to evaluate data and conclusions that are provided to them, in order to assess whether those data/conclusions are a) relevant to their own work, b) robust and reliable, and c) likely to lead them to better, more robust results and conclusions of their own. You wouldn't know this, of course, being a non-scientist who doesn't understand all this properly.

Oh, and "ultra vires" is a doctrinal condition. One cannot talk of something being done "ultra vires of the court". If you insist on continuing with pretentious Latin legal phrases (rather than, for example in this instance, simply writing something like "outside the powers/remit of the court"), please ensure you use them in the correct way - it's doubly embarrassing if you don't. Thanks!

Vixen's points are usually vires ultra.

 

[Planigale]

Please don't advertise your ignorance, Vecchiotti & Conti did act outside of their official position. They should have applied to the court. They had no right to make their own decision as to what they would test and what not.

Well I am a bachelor of science with honours, so I must have done something scientific.

Likewise, the rest of your post is also full of smoke and mirrors.

This is a very interesting point. As the court appointed experts they are indeed the ones who should make the decision. It is clearly stupid for a judge to insist on a test being carried out that the expert says is wrong and they cannot do. In the UK a judge or court my wish a test to be carried out but they cannot make someone do it. Whilst Conti / vecchiotti should perhaps have got the judge to sign off on the decision, it would have been wrong for them to have tried to do a 'Steffanoni' carrying out LCN DNA testing in a lab not set up to do so. What happened was the right outcome, the sample was tested in a lab set up to do LCN testing. From a technical PoV rather than a legal one the initial ISC decision was wrong in saying that it was the judges decision about testing, rather than the court appointed expert. A logical consequence of this is any decision about testing, e.g. using a mass spec vs GC for analysing a trace substance becomes the judges decision and not the forensic scientist.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please don't advertise your ignorance, Vecchiotti & Conti did act outside of their official position. They should have applied to the court. They had no right to make their own decision as to what they would test and what not.


Well I am a bachelor of science with honours, so I must have done something scientific.

Likewise, the rest of your post is also full of smoke and mirrors.

Quite some chutzpah to talk about "smoke and mirrors" while using smoke and mirrors to create a straw man in the response! I wrote nothing whatsoever about whether or not C&V "acted outside of their official position". I addressed your nonsense about Hampikian providing experimental data to C&V, and then I corrected you on your embarrassing misuse of "ultra vires".

And you're aware that social sciences are categorically not the same thing as natural sciences? Or perhaps you weren't aware of that. You are now.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think most viewers will come to the view that Amanda's distress in the film is real. And I sympathise with the sense of disquiet you probably had when watching that just possibly you got it wrong. I am interested that, unprompted, it is the emotions of Amanda you allude to, because it was Pisa who I was talking about. But of course it is the (lack of) evidence that matters.

Another of the classic examples of woolly thinking and poor logic from pro-guilt commentators is how they so often believe one can make direct read-across comparisons from completely separate cases. In this instance, there's a stench of "Well, proven killers in other cases have cried on camera, so this gives me the right to conclude that Knox's emotions on camera are also the crocodile tears of a killer", and "Well, Netflix commissioned a docu-series on another case where the innocence of the protagonist (Avery) is very far from clear (for the second murder, at least), so why should things be any different with the Knox documentary?"

Very poor thinking. Very poor indeed.

 

[Vixen]

I think most viewers will come to the view that Amanda's distress in the film is real. And I sympathise with the sense of disquiet you probably had when watching that just possibly you got it wrong. I am interested that, unprompted, it is the emotions of Amanda you allude to, because it was Pisa who I was talking about. But of course it is the (lack of) evidence that matters.

There is no lack of evidence at all, save for the evidence deliberately omitted by the film.

 

[Vixen]

Not necessarily. Some universities grant bachelors of science to traditionally bachelor of arts subjects, the London School of Economics being one. "Northwestern University's School of Communication grants B.Sc. degrees in all of its programs of study, including theater, dance, and radio/television/film. "

My daughter has a bachelor of science (magna cum laude) in computers. That doesn't make her a DNA, biology, or chemistry expert. Although she does know a heck of a lot about paleontology.

<Yawn>

 

[toto]

There is no lack of evidence at all, save for the evidence deliberately omitted by the film.

But you need to remember that they were found not guilty by the Supreme Court. If there was convincing evidence the Supreme Court would have rubberstamped the verdict.

 

[Vixen]

This is a very interesting point. As the court appointed experts they are indeed the ones who should make the decision. It is clearly stupid for a judge to insist on a test being carried out that the expert says is wrong and they cannot do. In the UK a judge or court my wish a test to be carried out but they cannot make someone do it. Whilst Conti / vecchiotti should perhaps have got the judge to sign off on the decision, it would have been wrong for them to have tried to do a 'Steffanoni' carrying out LCN DNA testing in a lab not set up to do so. What happened was the right outcome, the sample was tested in a lab set up to do LCN testing. From a technical PoV rather than a legal one the initial ISC decision was wrong in saying that it was the judges decision about testing, rather than the court appointed expert. A logical consequence of this is any decision about testing, e.g. using a mass spec vs GC for analysing a trace substance becomes the judges decision and not the forensic scientist.

You misunderstand. Chiefi's point is that had Vecchiotti & Conti decided in their professional opinion that a sample did not need to be tested, as directed by a court; they should have made an application to the court to decline.

ETA LCN testing had come a long way since 2007. In addition, Vecchiotti was found guilty of professional misconduct by negligence and fined heavily. She swapped a DNA sample around in the Ogliata case. That's not an honest person. She is someone who will bend the rules.

 

[Vixen]

But you need to remember that they were found not guilty by the Supreme Court. If there was convincing evidence the Supreme Court would have rubberstamped the verdict.

Point remains, toto, there was deliberate misrepresentation by the film. The film makers now acknowledge that it was Amanda who approached them to make it, knowing they were fanboys Friends of Amanda Knox.

In effect the film is commissioned by activists and it should have come clean it was a campaign film, rather like a party political broadcast.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's points are usually vires ultra.

Ultra is a prefix so comes before the word it is qualifying.

 

[toto]

Point remains, toto, there was deliberate misrepresentation by the film. The film makers now acknowledge that it was Amanda who approached them to make it, knowing they were fanboys Friends of Amanda Knox.

In effect the film is commissioned by activists and it should have come clean it was a campaign film, rather like a party political broadcast.

No. It reflected the factual truth and the legal truth that they were not guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

Point remains, toto, there was deliberate misrepresentation by the film. The film makers now acknowledge that it was Amanda who approached them to make it, knowing they were fanboys Friends of Amanda Knox.

In effect the film is commissioned by activists and it should have come clean it was a campaign film, rather like a party political broadcast.

...... and they coerced Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini to admit to highly prejudicial things.

These are witches and demons all right.

 

[LondonJohn]

...... and they coerced Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini to admit to highly prejudicial things.

These are witches and demons all right.

Yep. I bet if the cameras had panned down during the Pisa and Mignini interviews you'd have been able to see the electrodes attached to both men's testicles, with the evil twin directors behind the camera holding up talk-boards with one hand headlined with "SAY THE FOLLOWING WORDS ON THE CARD, OR ELSE......" and holding the electricity switch in the other hand.

 

[LondonJohn]

(let's just say the outtakes reel for the film features lots of screaming and smoke.....)

 

[Vixen]

...... and they coerced Nick Pisa and Giuliano Mignini to admit to highly prejudicial things.

These are witches and demons all right.

No they didn't. Nick Pisa is entirely peripheral to the case. It's like claiming FOX News is responsible for sensationalising the death of Princess Diana in France. Mignini was edited to make him look silly. But guess what, he came across as a serious and credible figure.

 

[toto]

No they didn't. Nick Pisa is entirely peripheral to the case. It's like claiming FOX News is responsible for sensationalising the death of Princess Diana in France. Mignini was edited to make him look silly. But guess what, he came across as a serious and credible figure.

Your last two sentences don't really make sense when read together. He was given the dignity of speaking for himself and making his point of view clear. And nobody could doubt the clarity of what he said. The problem was: what he said.