The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
I agree. If I've got toilet paper stuck to my shoe, please tell me so I can be embarrassed for a short time rather than making a fool of myself all day long as it trails behind me.

I have a relative who constantly mispronounces "mischievous" as "mischeeveeous". Rather than correct her openly, I just agreed with her by saying "Oh, my. That really was mischievous!", only correctly pronouncing the word. She then tried to correct my pronunciation. I said no, that is correct. She disagreed again so I said to look it up in the dictionary. We did but even then, she said "mischeeveeous" is an accepted alternate pronunciation. I said to find me a dictionary that has that as an alternative and I'll agree. She couldn't. To this day she still says it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Yeah, that sounds like you. How incredibly rude to correct someone's pronunciation or grammar whilst they are speaking. What is it to you?

I have had ignoramuses correcting how I pronounce the word 'sauna'. You don't tell a Finn how to pronounce their own word, no matter what Merriam-Webster says.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Try reading the highlighted part again very, very slowly this time, Vix. I did not correct her pronunciation while she was speaking. In fact, I didn't correct her at all. I simply agreed with her and pronounced the word correctly in that agreement. It was SHE who tried to correct ME. I'm beginning to suspect your poor reading comprehension is at the root of your inability to understand this case.

Unsurprisingly, your sauna story is irrelevant as it's a totally different situation. You speak Finnish. Sauna is a Finnish word. Apparently the 'ignoramuses' who tried to correct you did not speak Finnish. If you cannot see the difference in the two situations....
 
Vixen said:
I think you have the American penchant for 'rules'
Click to expand...
No, I have a penchant for pronouncing words correctly.

and this is because the US has so many different nationalities converging on it at different times, there was a demand for rules.
Click to expand...

That's quite a theory. But, as usual, you just pulled that right out of your... um....thin air. Dictionaries have been around for centuries. The word 'dictionary' was invented by an Englishman in the 13th century and the first modern form English dictionary appeared in England in 1604. Webster created the first American language dictionary in 1828 because he wanted to simplify spelling and add American words. It had nothing to do with different nationalities converging here at different times creating a demand for rules.


However, as acbytesla points out language is much more subtle than following strict rules.
Click to expand...

I agree. But if you want to knowingly mispronounce words, be my guest. It's just not something I prefer to do.
 
Stacyhs said:
Agreed, which is why I didn't correct my relative. I just used it properly and she then questioned me about it.



Me, too. A debate is not always an argument.:D
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
She saw what you were doing.
Click to expand...

That mind reading ability of yours is truly miraculous! I'm surprised an intelligence agency hasn't recruited you.

It was she who attempted to correct me. Oh, wait....now I see why they haven't recruited you.
 
acbytesla said:
I have to admit I find your picadillo on this word to be amusing as I grew up saying this word like your relative.
Click to expand...

Did you do this deliberately?

:D

I have a similar story - I only recently found out I'd been pronouncing (and indeed spelling) "anemone" incorrectly for my entire life. I thought it was "anenome", in fact that still sounds correct to me, and I suspect it'll take me a while before I really internalise the correct word. I presume it's because it's similar to "anonymous", but I don't really know how I came to be wrong for so long.
 
Matthew Best said:
Did you do this deliberately?
Click to expand...

ROFL. Nope, I originally spelled it "pecadillo"and the spell checker on my tablet changed it to "picadillo". It's not a word I often use so I assumed I had been wrong on how to spell it and went with the computer assuming it knew better. This cracks me up. I never knew until this moment there is a Spanish dish called "picadillo". I was right, then wrong and now I've learned something new
Matthew Best said:
I have a similar story - I only recently found out I'd been pronouncing (and indeed spelling) "anemone" incorrectly for my entire life. I thought it was "anenome", in fact that still sounds correct to me, and I suspect it'll take me a while before I really internalise the correct word. I presume it's because it's similar to "anonymous", but I don't really know how I came to be wrong for so long.
Click to expand...

I get how you can be wrong about something like that. I'm sure I've made similar mistakes with certain words.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else find it funny that Vixen who regularly posts dozen comments in minutes stops when she wants to avoid addressing a mistake she knows is fact?
 
whoanellie said:
Code Name: Kemo Sabe
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:


acbytesla said:
ROFL. Nope, I originally spelled it "pecadillo"and the spell checker on my tablet changed it to "picadillo". It's not a word I often use so I assumed I had been wrong on how to spell it and went with the computer assuming it knew better. This cracks me up. I never knew until this moment there is a Spanish dish called "picadillo". I was right, then wrong and now I've learned something new


I get how you can be wrong about something like that. I'm sure I've made similar mistakes with certain words.
Click to expand...

You must not eat much Mexican food! Having grown up largely in S. California, I love Tex-Mex and I always order picadillo in my tacos and enchiladas.
 
acbytesla said:
Does anyone else find it funny that Vixen who regularly posts dozen comments in minutes stops when she wants to avoid addressing a mistake she knows is fact?
Click to expand...

Her standard operating procedure is avoidance and distraction.

ETA: Speaking of which, has Vixen found that David Marriot-Curt Knox-$2 million PR campaign evidence yet? For something 'readily available' it's sure taking her a long time.
 
Last edited:
9.4.1 in M/B and how to evaluate it.

Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
 
Stacyhs said:
:thumbsup:

You must not eat much Mexican food! Having grown up largely in S. California, I love Tex-Mex and I always order picadillo in my tacos and enchiladas.
Click to expand...

Obviously not that much. This is what happens when you're from Iowa, My mom made pot roasts, catfish, fish, rabbit and almost no foreign foods except a few Norwegian/Swedish dishes

After we moved from Iowa we might have something exotic like salmon. But that is because my dad liked to fish and that's the kind of fish you find in the NW.

I don't think i knew what a jalapeno was until I was in my late 20s.
 
TomG said:
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that what it says is that there is proof that Amanda was in the cottage.
And there is. But so what? Her presence in the cottage is not in dispute. Only the time when she was there. DNA evidence does not include a time stamp.
 
Vixen said:
Don't call me dishonest. You're the dishonest one because if you look at the attachment it clearly gives the date, time and fares. You won't get a last minute budget fare unless you are lucky. Dishonest because you searched for 'tomorrow' and days in advance. I looked up 'next'.

Are you really expecting us to believe Knox and co are going to be perusing budget airlines in the early hours? Fact is, she went via Heathrow.
Click to expand...

Nope. I did exactly that and your numbers are rubbish. Want me to do it again? Will you simply ignore it again?

ETA: Right now (21-09-2019 16:32) I can book a BA flight for €1500 to €3600 on 22-09-2019.

So why, Vixen, are you plainly lying?

ETA2: As I watch it has risen to €1700 to €3800. That is how fast the web updates.

ETA3: The imputation that I was lying the first time this example was wheeled out was false. I did not seek a price "days in advance". It was a next day price. Vixen appears to not understand that if I re-run the exercise in a few hours the prices will be entirely different. Vixen appears to not understand that the prices move in real time.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Nope. I did exactly that and your numbers are rubbish. Want me to do it again? Will you simply ignore it again?
Click to expand...

Honest question -- are there mental disorders where people lie and do not even realize they lie? I've met a handful of people like this, and I always assumed they knew they were lying and just covering it up with more lies. But there are... extreme cases apparently, and I'm wondering if there are conditions where the person does not even consciously realize it?
 
TomG said:
Ok, this is spillover from an ongoing debate between myself, Francisco and Harry Rag. The point is 9.4.1 and how to correctly evaluate it. The pro-guilt stance is of course Amanda's presence at VDP during Meredith's murder is a "proven fact" (well it would wouldn't it) and is confirmed in the TJMK version of M/B, while the IA version interprets it as an "acclaimed fact" in the trial. A simple google translation arrives at an "estabished fact" However, at the start of section 4.0 M/B seems to be advising the reader to evaluate the section as a "hypothesis" which appears to be the proper context as a premise. I must admit I'm not comfortable with an "acclaimed fact" as a translation since it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. Is this just another case of M/B being ambiguous and offering a buffet of interpretations? What's the consensus?

Hoots
Click to expand...

It is clear that in the overall context of M/B, that court is assessing the guilt-case, as found by Nencini, as a hypothesis. Why? Because even if true, that hypothesis still does not put Knox in the murder room, but in another part of the cottage at a later time.

Earlier in M/B, the court outright refers to the prosecution case as based on "allegations".

The key though, is that if it was as Harry Rag pounds on about, it would be more than him pounding on about it. Noticeably missing is **any** reputable Italian legal source.

Stefano Maffei **is** a reputable Italian legal source, but his (lone) criticism of M/B is that the accumulated width of circumstantial evidence can make up for no depth of that same accumulation. So it was Maffei agreed with the 2013 Cassation overturning of the Hellmann acquittal, on the grounds of what they saw as the sheer width, not weight, of factoid evidence.

AFAIK not even Maffei, though, has taken issue with the eventual Cassazione acquittal, one based on not necessarily dismissing the facts as Nencini had seen them, but based on "even if true, still does not put Knox (or Sollecito)," at the right place at the right time.

Rag can argue 9.4.1 all he wants. But to make it say what he wants it to say ignores the rest of the report.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm convinced that what it says is that there is proof that Amanda was in the cottage.
And there is. But so what? Her presence in the cottage is not in dispute. Only the time when she was there. DNA evidence does not include a time stamp.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ironically in 2010 Judge Massei ruled out the forensic relevance of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips, on the grounds that she'd been sexually active and a DNA i.d. would not come with a time stamp.

But suddenly, turn that around and find Knox's DNA in her own bathroom, one that she'd shared for weeks with the victim, and that time stamp appears out of nowhere.
 
Bill Williams said:
Exactly. Ironically in 2010 Judge Massei ruled out the forensic relevance of the presumed semen stain under the victim's hips, on the grounds that she'd been sexually active and a DNA i.d. would not come with a time stamp.

But suddenly, turn that around and find Knox's DNA in her own bathroom, one that she'd shared for weeks with the victim, and that time stamp appears out of nowhere.
Click to expand...

If that stain was determined to be Guede's semen, I wonder how Massei would have explained its presence? I still find it unbelievable that a suspected semen stain between the legs of the victim was not seen as a potential primary piece of evidence in a rape/ murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom