The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Do have a read of expert Latella, old chap. He makes it clear that on the contrary, the signal to Raff's appartment was very strong.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Letterio_Latella's_Testimony


Stop twisting the facts to fit your innocence fraud agenda.

People are not stupid. They know when they are reading flannel.
Click to expand...

You didn’t read Dr. Pellero's testimony obviously. Latella did not test inside Raffaele's apartment. She only tested from outside. Dr Pellero testified after testing from the inside of Raffaele's apartment that there were dead spots in the apartment where the network signal could not be seen.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Haven't done your homework, then? You just made up some drivel about 'parts of Raff's apartment were sheilded from phone signals and that's why it looks like he had his phone off'.

Latella establishes (a) Raff turned off his phone and it then remained in the same position he left it until he turned it back on. and (b) that the signals to Raff's apartment were powerful.

Who should we believe, you or the expert?

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Letterio_Latella's_Testimony

Who is 'intellectually dishonest'?
Click to expand...


Ahhhh I see the issue, Vixen.

Y'see, you've neglected to notice that words 2, 3 and 4 of your linked text are these. I'll write them in the sort of large text you seem to enjoy these days:

NEAR THE HOME (of Sollecito)


Can you perhaps immediately see the problem here, Vixen? I'm guessing that you can't (though I'm unsurprised at that). So shall I point it out to you? The problem, Vixen, is that the prosecution "expert" based her analysis entirely on signal readings taken outside of Sollecito's apartment. She never even entered Sollecito's apartment at all (as indeed she could easily have done), in order to take the only signal measurements that actually mattered in this case: the signal strength and quality at various places within Sollecito's apartment. Without that information, her report is virtually worthless as any attempt to evaluate the likelihood of Sollecito's handset falling out of network coverage from within his apartment on the evening/night of the murder.

Oh, in answer to your closing question: it's not me :)
 
acbytesla said:
You didn’t read Dr. Pellero's testimony obviously. Latella did not test inside Raffaele's apartment. She only tested from outside. Dr Pellero testified that there were dead spots in the apartment where the network signal could not be seen.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Unfortunately, Vixen appears to have been too ignorant of this subject to have even realised this..........
 
bagels said:
Evidence isn't about statistics and pattern matching. If it was everyone that breathed oxygen would be guilty of murder (since all murderers breathe oxygen).

AK and RS turning off their phones at a time that appears to roughly correspond to the alleged timespan of the crime isn't a relevant piece of evidence by itself in the void. Anglolawyer used to give a good example of interpreting evidence. He reasoned that evidence is like radiation left over by the actual process of actually committing the crime.

It's easier to just quote him:



The cell phones being switched off means nothing in and of itself. It has to be part of a broader scope of the crime. It would have to connect with a theory of pre-meditation. Otherwise they are retroactively turning off their cell phone after a spontaneous decision to commit a crime, violating the laws of causality.



Constructing a premeditation theory of the crime doesn't work, because AK and RS had existing plans that were only cancelled at the last moment, and had no means of coordinating with Rudy whom they did not know nor know if he would even be available that night or when. This is why the prosecution and courts never described a premeditated event. Working the phones into the surrounding circumstantial evidence takes you on a jumbled path that leads nowhere. Of course, the police originally conceived of a premeditated crime due to their suspect Patrick and his communication and agreed meeting with Amanda, but Patrick being removed from the picture killed that theory and really should have killed AKs involvement along with Patrick's... (but I digress).

I used to think the PGP were just bad at understanding how evidence works and relying on simple pattern matching (the flawed reasoning that if other cases have X, and this case has X, then this case is like other cases). But I came to realize it's not necessarily the case. They already know Amanda is guilty as a starting axiom. The evidence is simply splattered at random post-hoc.
Click to expand...

Amanda thinking that Mez had 'stolen' her job, might have been the last straw: Mez was popular with a large circle of friends. Amanda was reduced to watching Mez get up late and then go straight back out. Having taken on Mez at the bar, Patrick now rings up Amanda to tell her not to come in. (He claims he was about to fire her.)

Rachel Wade fetched a kitchen knife to kill her school mate, so it is not something that is particularly unusual (see: Costas/Protti, De Nardo, Erin Caffey).

Ultimately, the coldly objective merits courts found the pair guilty of aggravated murder, as charged, together with Rudy.

It is a common consensus that the verdict was only annulled because of political reasons.
 
Last edited:
"It is a common consensus"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
acbytesla said:
You didn’t read Dr. Pellero's testimony obviously. Latella did not test inside Raffaele's apartment. She only tested from outside. Dr Pellero testified after testing from the inside of Raffaele's apartment that there were dead spots in the apartment where the network signal could not be seen.
Click to expand...

Ah, riiiight. That's what it must be. D'oh! _NOT!
 
Vixen said:
Don't tell me, you have a degree in the topic.
Click to expand...

We already had that conversation, did you forget? Conveniently?

Yes, it happens that I do, same as the last time you asked. No, it has not changed since the last time you asked. No, it will not change no matter how many times you ask.

Yes, I have a string of letters after my name, awarded on merit by the institute. You don't. You clearly have no clue how cell networks actually work, you are unable to tell a HF antenna from a cell mast, you think that cell masts spin, and so on.

As an accredited professional in that arena, such claims are trivially baloney.
 
Vixen said:
Ah, riiiight. That's what it must be. D'oh! _NOT!
Click to expand...


Person A: Liverpool FC's home shirt is yellow.

Person B: No it's not, it's red.

Person A (scoffing): Nonsense. Here's the evidence to prove I'm correct.

(Person A provides photo of Liverpool FC players wearing yellow shirts, captioned "Arsenal playing at home against Liverpool, 2016/17 season")

Person B: Oh dear. What you've done there is provide a photo showing Liverpool's away shirt. Liverpool's home shirt is red, as shown by this photo.

(Person B provides photo of Liverpool FC players wearing red shirts, captioned "Liverpool playing at home against Burnley, 2016-17 season")


Person A: Ah, riiiight. That's what it must be. D'oh! _NOT!


:rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. Unfortunately, Vixen appears to have been too ignorant of this subject to have even realised this..........
Click to expand...

I just love when Vixen makes authoritive ABSOLUTE statements that she doesn't have a damn clue about.

I think it irrelevant that they may have turned off their phones at night and turned them on in the morning. To Vixen this shows a nefarious plot of premeditation and dismissing all the other very likely reasons why they MAY have turned their phones off.

Reasons for turning off your phone.
1. Saving the battery
2. Habit
3. Not wanting to be called into work. (They can't reach you, they can't ask you.)
4. Don't want to be interrupted between callouts to the almighty.

I'm sure that there are others instead of I'm in the middle of a murder and I don't want to be disturbed.
 
Last edited:
diagnostic testing and the problems of false negatives and false positives

Chris_Halkides said:
There is a new entry about presumptive and confirmatory testing in the forensic sciences up. It's an introduction to some of the issues in this general area, and the Knox/Sollecito case is mentioned. The Forensics Forum is organized by Professor Brandon Garrett (U. Virginia), author of the book Convicting the Innocent.
Click to expand...

BTW I wrote the article above, and I am grateful to commenters here for a number of insights. The use of presumptive and confirmatory testing is probably much common in the case of identifying people with a medical condition of some sort. Here is a quote that is pertinent to the present case: "Lalkhen and McCluskey further state, 'Although the ideal (but unrealistic) situation is for a 100% accurate test, a good alternative is to subject patients who are initially positive to a test with high sensitivity/low specificity, to a second test with low sensitivity/high specificity. In this way, nearly all of the false positives may be correctly identified as disease negative.'"

EDT
This may help to explain why one follows TMB with a confirmatory test that doesn't have the false positives that TMB does. And luminol? Don't get me started on luminol.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
It's utterly pitiful. Most arguments are not borne of the sheer chutzpah (or the level of intellectual dishonesty) to come out on the offensive in arguments when they are not underpinned by any understanding whatsoever of the topic being discussed/debated....
Click to expand...

Weirdly, Vixen is now trying to assert that this time around the block that I am somehow claim a different degree on top of my previous claim for reasons that I cannot fathom. The degree is the same, hasn't changed. Why Vixen is throwing that out is...odd.
 
Vixen said:
The merits and the appeal court upheld that Amanda killed Mez, based on all the evidence heard before it.

Marasca, despite anulling the convictions, did not at any point say the pair were innocent.

Indeed it makes it clear: Amanda (and almost certainly, therefore, Raff) was at the scene of the murder .

The most recent judgment of the Florence Appeal Court, 22 Jan 2017, of Masi-Martuscelli in dismissing Raff's compensation claim, underlines it again:



Florence 22 January 2017
Presiding Judge
Dr. Silvia Martuscelli
Reporting Judge
Dr. Paola MASI
Filed with Registry [the clerk of court] 10 February 2017
Antonio Bossa
Clerk


So what was Amanda doing at the murder scene with Rudy and why did she not report it, but indeed denied it and did cover up for Rudy, it was found by the court?

You cannot answer this question can you?
Click to expand...

Holy mother of God.. Vixen, have you completely lost your mind? I point out three lies you made in a desperate effort to fabricate a motive and you respond with this? I'll take this as an admission of your lying.

Oh, and BTW, you do know that as it pertains to the murder of Meredith Kercher, the findings of the Massei and Nencini courts are just as relevant at this point as the Hellmann court. For someone who can't stop repeating that Hellmann was annulled, you sure do seem to have a very difficult time understanding Massei and Nencini met the same fate.
 
abaddon said:
We already had that conversation, did you forget? Conveniently?

Yes, it happens that I do, same as the last time you asked. No, it has not changed since the last time you asked. No, it will not change no matter how many times you ask.

Yes, I have a string of letters after my name, awarded on merit by the institute. You don't. You clearly have no clue how cell networks actually work, you are unable to tell a HF antenna from a cell mast, you think that cell masts spin, and so on.

As an accredited professional in that arena, such claims are trivially baloney.
Click to expand...

That was funny.
 
LondonJohn said:
Person A: Liverpool FC's home shirt is yellow.

Person B: No it's not, it's red.

Person A (scoffing): Nonsense. Here's the evidence to prove I'm correct.

(Person A provides photo of Liverpool FC players wearing yellow shirts, captioned "Arsenal playing at home against Liverpool, 2016/17 season")

Person B: Oh dear. What you've done there is provide a photo showing Liverpool's away shirt. Liverpool's home shirt is red, as shown by this photo.

(Person B provides photo of Liverpool FC players wearing red shirts, captioned "Liverpool playing at home against Burnley, 2016-17 season")


Person A: Ah, riiiight. That's what it must be. D'oh! _NOT!


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Poor analogy.

A better one is:

"VIXEN: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

VIXEN: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

LONDON JOHN: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

VIXEN: STUNNED?!?

LONDON JOHN: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

VIXEN: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

LONDON JOHN: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

VIXEN: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

LONDON JOHN: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!"
Click to expand...
With apologies to Monty Python, http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Series_1/53.htm

:(:o
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I just love when Vixen makes authoritive ABSOLUTE statements that she doesn't have a damn clue about.

I think it irrelevant that they may have turned off their phones at night and turned them on in the morning. To Vixen this shows a nefarious plot of premeditation and dismissing all the other very likely reasons why they MAY have turned their phones off.

Reasons for turning off your phone.
1. Saving the battery
2. Habit
3. Not wanting to be called into work. (They can't reach you, they can't ask you.)
4. Don't want to be interrupted between callouts to the almighty.

I'm sure that there are others instead of I'm in the middle of a murder and I don't want to be disturbed.
Click to expand...


It is a surprisingly common thing for criminals to do (cf Jody Arias).

Read what the experts have to say.
 
abaddon said:
I admit, it was a pretty spectacularly strange claim. I can tell by eye what freq a given antenna is tuned to simply by dint of experience. Our proponent has no clue why that matters.
Click to expand...

I can't say I've dealt with high frequency communications. I knew what it wasn't. I just remember the image. I've sold cellular and microwave equipment, but never HF. I don't have a degree in communications, I've only sat through countless training seminars so I could sell the equipment to engineers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom