Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Actually they are not appeals to authority. Here is the thing... it answers according to the science it presents. It is good science. The information holds. If you want peer review, I am all for it. His work stands on its own - as far as it able to go. He is not a charlatan. What you are doing is shutting down finding out what his claims have to say by attempting to discredit him. The science presented is sound. As Shuttit said in a previous comment, he makes a good argument. That argument speaks for itself, and is examinable.

Mostly that blog raises a question - a question you seem unwilling to pursue. The entire point of debating this case for those who see a problem with it is EXACTLY to question the court, with regards to this case. But it will follow its own path. The light of logic will illuminate things for what they are. Questioning the court is not a crime and it is not improprietous. It is what free human beings do. The court answers to the people it serves.

To censor - and to try to control - that line of questioning is not justice. It is not respect for truth. It is not respect for the victim of this crime - Meredith Kercher.

I disagree that it's a good argument. You can supply an intriguing or interesting question without having arrived at it scientifically.

Let me state again: Waterbury does not have to be refuted. He merely has to subject his findings to peer review as any scientist does. We are told that his papers have been confirmed by anonymous sources. That should set off alarm bells right there.

If we were discussing this in the science and technology thread it would be ripped to shreds. As I suggested to halides1 a long time ago, the DNA evidence and methodology actually should be moved to that part of the forum, where real experts could explain to you what's wrong with it.

Dr Waterbury assurred me he had access to everything the prosecution had given to the defence. Perhaps he's misinformed.

By what means is he in the same category as the legal defence teams? Was he hired by Knox? How do her lawyers feel about someone unconnected with her case having "access to everything the prosecution had given to the defence"?

I call shenanigans here.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I disagree that it's a good argument. You can supply an intriguing or interesting question without having arrived at it scientifically.

Let me state again: Waterbury does not have to be refuted. He merely has to subject his findings to peer review as any scientist does. We are told that his papers have been confirmed by anonymous sources. That should set off alarm bells right there.

If we were discussing this in the science and technology thread it would be ripped to shreds. As I suggested to halides1 a long time ago, the DNA evidence and methodology actually should be moved to that part of the forum, where real experts could explain to you what's wrong with it.



By what means is he in the same category as the legal defence teams? Was he hired by Knox? How do her lawyers feel about someone unconnected with her case having "access to everything the prosecution had given to the defence"?

I call shenanigans here.

How come you don't refute his arguments, but only try to discredit him? What about the argument is not sound? There are two parts to his argument - one is purely technical (and yes this can be checked... btw I really like your idea about the science and technology part of the thread - excellent idea) and the other is not purely technical.

 

[Open Inquiry]

... You can supply an intriguing or interesting question without having arrived at it scientifically. ...

What do you mean by that? I didn't quite understand in the context of the comment.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Waterbury does not have to be refuted.

Can you explain more of what you mean by that?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Can you explain more of what you mean by that?

For example, what about him "doesn't have to be refuted"? His credentials, his non purely technical argument, etc...

 

[tsig]

For example, what about him "doesn't have to be refuted"? His credentials, his non purely technical argument, etc...

Since he's making assertions it's up to him to back them up with something more than pointing at his degree or his "non purely technical argument" or his access to hidden knowledge.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I also rather suspect, you have a rather inflated idea as to what your 'rights' to privacy actually are While there may be stricter rules governing the police in your country, you might be rather surprised as to what 'other' agencies can and do tap. In fact, 'technically', you actually don't make a single phone call without it being tapped, at least not in the US or UK or in calls to anyone in those countries. Same goes for email.

Word of advice. If you don't know something, don't make stuff up to make a point of it. Thanks.

 

[Alt+F4]

Word of advice. If you don't know something, don't make stuff up to make a point of it. Thanks.

Too bad someone didn't give this advice to Amanda and Raffaele before they started with their string of lies.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Since he's making assertions it's up to him to back them up with something more than pointing at his degree or his "non purely technical argument" or his access to hidden knowledge.

A logical argument requires a logical refutation. That is what I meant by the nontechnical part.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Basically you can assess most of it for yourself. If you want to put certain parts on hold until it is peer-reviewed, that is one thing. But it is not just a forensics paper. It sounds like people here would rather look the other way but not because his field is not DNA specialist, but because that is a convenient reason to write it off. You have every option to write it off... freedom of speech means freedom to speak, not to be heard. That is your choice. And you certainly don't have to argue it with me. (Of course.)

 

[Fulcanelli]

Really? Dr Waterbury assurred me he had access to everything the prosecution had given to the defence. Perhaps he's misinformed. Anyway, they have access to a lot of dead trees more than we do.

Who is he trying to kid? It's over 10,000 pages...that's the prosecution case file alone. He's been given 10,000 pages? Really? And if he has, how's his Italian? Because every page is in Italian.

By the way, do you have any idea how much translators charge for a translation...per word?

He doesn't have the report.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Too bad someone didn't give this advice to Amanda and Raffaele before they started with their string of lies.

Touche!

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is the quote:

"The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because
once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling
the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I
apologized but she had nothing done to her."

I am not sure he explicitly states it was in his apartment but it could be due to the translation.

The translation itself doesn't...that's because some things do not translate from one language into another. However, all Italian speakers that have reviewed his diary have maintained that his grammar and syntax described it as taking place in his apartment. This has been discussed at length and established on PMF. If you feel deficient of assurance of the fact, feel free to raise the question on PMF directed at one of our Italian translators. They are more qualified then I and will be happy to answer such questions.

 

[shuttlt]

Who is he trying to kid? It's over 10,000 pages...that's the prosecution case file alone. He's been given 10,000 pages? Really? And if he has, how's his Italian? Because every page is in Italian.

By the way, do you have any idea how much translators charge for a translation...per word?

He doesn't have the report.

I'm going to duck out of the debate for a bit, but before I do the following is a quote (with his permission) from my email conversation with Dr Waterbury:

I have access to all of the information shared by the the prosecution with the defense, and in that sense I am a "primary source" rather than relying on news accounts, etc. Nowhere in that data are there any records of blank tests or any of the other control experiments mentioned in my blog articles. It is possible that they were performed, and not disclosed, as that has been a pattern with other material.

Dr. Stefanoni was compelled by the judges to release additional information about the DNA testing last summer, but the disclosure was still not complete. The withholding of evidence by the prosecution in this trial was sufficiently egregious that in a US court it would have resulted in dismissal.

He is clearly not intending to imply that he has a 10,000 page translation of the entire case file. It does seem to me though that he is saying that he has a copy of all the forensic information that the defence have, such that if he doesn't have it, they don't, in a form that he is able to read.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How come you don't refute his arguments, but only try to discredit him? What about the argument is not sound? There are two parts to his argument - one is purely technical (and yes this can be checked... btw I really like your idea about the science and technology part of the thread - excellent idea) and the other is not purely technical.

Don't generalise. Which particular argument...what is sound? He talks a lot, too much wading. Give us an example of a specific sound argument from the engineer. We can't debate it otherwise.

 

[Moss]

That's exactly what confuses me a lot, why do Raffaele and Amanda come up with false stories instead of denying knowledge and involvement? If they aren't guilty (of which I have to admit I'm not convinced) they certainly made a lot of errors.
Especially in the case of Amanda blaming Lumumba I could see the (unlikely) possibility of her coming up with that story without outside pressure to get the interview over . She might have just been irresponsible and stupid.

 

[Moss]

I'm going to duck out of the debate for a bit, but before I do the following is a quote (with his permission) from my email conversation with Dr Waterbury:



He is clearly not intending to imply that he has a 10,000 page translation of the entire case file. It does seem to me though that he is saying that he has a copy of all the forensic information that the defence have, such that if he doesn't have it, they don't, in a form that he is able to read.

He's pretty vague about what exactly is lacking. Would you mind asking about specifics?

 

[Open Inquiry]

The translation itself doesn't...that's because some things do not translate from one language into another. However, all Italian speakers that have reviewed his diary have maintained that his grammar and syntax described it as taking place in his apartment. This has been discussed at length and established on PMF. If you feel deficient of assurance of the fact, feel free to raise the question on PMF directed at one of our Italian translators. They are more qualified then I and will be happy to answer such questions.

This one I can vouch for. I took it to mean at his apartment. Also, it was a lie.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ok, let me see if I'm getting this straight. Mark Waterbury, who is a materials engineer, has a blog about this case. He has not been retained by either the prosecution or the defense but has somehow gained access to "all of the information shared by the prosecution with the defense". The prosecution has even turned over to him, a total stranger, evidence they withheld from the defense. And he doesn't speak Italian.

And I missing anything?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Don't generalise. Which particular argument...what is sound? He talks a lot, yoo much wading. Give us an example of a specific sound argument from the engineer. We can't debate it otherwise.

Good suggestions.

One thing, why do call him an "engineer". Isn't that reductionist?