Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bucketoftea said:
I'm curious as to your interpretation of how Rinaldi presented the overlaying of images. How did you arrive at this?
Click to expand...

As I wrote above, simply by reviewing Rinaldi's presentation that is available on the web.
Let me repeat: If you happen to have the part of Rinaldi's presentation where he superimposes the prints, don't hesitate to post or link it. I'm very willing to be corrected and I'd love to see how Rinaldi did it.
 
Vinci is convincing

bucketoftea said:
Rinaldi was more convincing to me and to the jurors. And I was talking about the bathmat print, not the luminol evidence. At best the defense can only dispute unconvincingly.
Click to expand...

In message 8370, I assumed you meant the luminol print, but I now see that you meant the bathmat print. So you take Rinaldi over Vinci, despite Rinaldi's inability to count to nine? What is your explanation of the imprint of the second toe on the bathmat. How could Raffaele have made it? How can one exclude Rudy from having made it?

Here is another quote from Frank Sfarzo:

"Raffaele in 2006 went to a podiatrist. The doctor recorded his particular footprint which characteristic was to have a hallux on a particular axis. And Vinci sees the big toe of the carpet print lying on a different axis."

Neither the big toe nor the second toe match Raffaele's print. It is tempting to quote colonelhall at this point, but I shall refrain for now.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Thanks for the answer Dan O. I bet it was disputed to death before :)

Looking like e.g. this photo is blurred in one direction I assumed it was taken with a hand held camera.

The point is any measurements applied to such a blurred photo will be quite imprecise.
Click to expand...

I've read here that Sollecito and Guede supposedly had close shoe sizes. But I also read how someone (cant remember where) described Sollecito as being alot shorter than he looks in pictures, and it makes me wonder,can someone as short and small looking as Sollecito really have almost the same foot size as a tall basketball player?
 
I would like to focus on the evidence

Solange305 said:
You really aren't fooling anyone with this "Im too scared of PMFers to prove that I have the experience to know what Im talking about" act.
Click to expand...

Solange305,

It is a matter of record that one PMFer said that I was messing with a dog with very big teeth. It is also a matter of record that a former JREFer and present PMFer here threatened me by implying he would go to my supervisor at work for posting on DNA matters. Therefore, Kevin_Lowe's concerns are not unfounded.

I would like to hear you discuss DNA or luminol or why Massei chose not to appoint independent forensic experts, as has been done in at least one other case. This would be of greater interest to me than discussing canards about Amanda's behavior.
 
Katody Matrass said:
As I wrote above, simply by reviewing Rinaldi's presentation that is available on the web.
Let me repeat: If you happen to have the part of Rinaldi's presentation where he superimposes the prints, don't hesitate to post or link it. I'm very willing to be corrected and I'd love to see how Rinaldi did it.
Click to expand...


I do not have nor have seen. I read it in a report from a source at least as trusted as Frank.
 
Solange305 said:
I've read here that Sollecito and Guede supposedly had close shoe sizes. But I also read how someone (cant remember where) described Sollecito as being alot shorter than he looks in pictures, and it makes me wonder,can someone as short and small looking as Sollecito really have almost the same foot size as a tall basketball player?
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how t.all Guede is, but I believe he is not tall. Not over 6' if that. Not all basketball players are giants.
 
Solange305 said:
I've read here that Sollecito and Guede supposedly had close shoe sizes. But I also read how someone (cant remember where) described Sollecito as being alot shorter than he looks in pictures, and it makes me wonder,can someone as short and small looking as Sollecito really have almost the same foot size as a tall basketball player?
Click to expand...

First Rudy has a toe that is longer than his big toe. Which means he wears shoes a little larger to compensate for the fit.

Foot size and height dont necessarily go hand in hand, so to speak.
As an example, I'm 5'11 1/2". My shoe size is 13. My youngest brother(19) is 5' 11" and wears a size 9 1/2. My best friend is 6'3" and wears a size 10. My youngest son(13) who is 6' 1" wears a size 9. My oldest son(16) 5' 11" wears a size 11. Now i'm sure my youngest sons feet will probably get bigger. However you can see that height doesn't necessarily mean bigger feet.

Believe it or not, I've actually started wearing my boots when I'm at the football game with my youngest. I hate looking shorter than him. Gets me an extra 1 1/2" to my height.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Solange305,

As recently as yesterday, you commented on a remark that Amanda might have made to an anonymous person. For you to say that you stopped discussing Amanda's behavior long ago is simply untrue. I have never demonized you or insulted you, to the best of my judgment and recollection. I welcome honest debate. But take a hard look at today's comments. I see a collection of discredited falsehoods being put forth by several pro-guilt commenters.
Click to expand...

I cannot understand why commenters - on both sides - like to label those with opposing views. In my opinion it is a way to stop honest debate, not welcome it. How can anyone discuss or debate a position when that person's position has already been labeled by another (and exactly what characteristics are displayed by the pro-guilt or pro-innocence person)?

I think it would benefit all to be reminded that there are people who could be hurt by what is posted here and elsewhere. What is posted on the internet doesn't remain in isolation and some posts I have viewed could cause much pain to those involved on both sides of this case.
 
Fine said:
________________

I think you are confused about this katy_did, and that is why you think Massei's logic is "garbage." There is nothing wrong with Massei's logic here. Massei never recognized---even for the purpose of discussion---that those six loci "don't match," as you understand what it is not to match. He was only willing to recognize---for the purpose of discussion--- that it hasn't been confirmed that the loci match. But in that case, it would not have been confirmed whether the loci match or not match. That's why those loci are called "disputed" loci.

This is what Machiavelli was trying to say in discussing the lottery ticket mis-analogy. In order for the lottery ticket example to be genuinely parallel to the Raffaele DNA case, some of the numerals on the lottery ticket would have to be missing or obscured in some manner. NOT a case in which some of the numerals on the lottery ticket "don't match" the numerals in the winning number, but a case in which it can't be confirmed whether those "disputed" numerals match, or don't match.

And understood in this way, Massei is right in thinking that more than six loci used in a test is preferable to using only six.....even if some loci remain disputed.

///
Click to expand...

You were quoting the defence team's argument there of course, who clearly do believe that Massei was arguing that as long as the majority of the loci are not disputed, this is good enough. I do agree with them, however, though I think I see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me that what Massei is saying is: the majority of loci were not disputed; the number which were not disputed is greater than the number which were disputed, and greater than the number of six loci, with which older versions of the test determined whether profiles matched or not; since the number of undisputed loci is greater than six, and greater than the number that were disputed, the result can overall be considered 'fully reliable'.

What your interpretation seems to be is: Massei is stating that 10/16 undisputed loci is better than 4/6 undisputed loci (for instance) - i.e. you believe he is arguing for the merits of DNA testing kits using 16 loci, rather than 6. That seems a pretty dubious suggestion, since I can't see what that has to do with whether the profile is Raffaele's.

Is that what you're saying - that Massei's argument here is that even if some of the loci remain disputed, "more than six loci used in a test is preferable to using only six"? Why on earth would he suddenly start talking about the merits of newer versions of the DNA testing kit, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Raffaele's DNA matches in this particular instance? If that is what you're saying, you're right that I'm a little confused by it...
 
Last edited:
bucketoftea said:
I can't tell you how t.all Guede is, but I believe he is not tall. Not over 6' if that. Not all basketball players are giants.
Click to expand...

I think someone posted a while back that Guede is about 5"11 or 5"11 and a half, somewhere around there. Tallish but not huge.
 
Last edited:
Solange305 said:
You really aren't fooling anyone with this "Im too scared of PMFers to prove that I have the experience to know what Im talking about" act.
Click to expand...

I think Kevin_Lowe is quite right, though, that it's the argument that matters, not his qualifications. I also fully understand his reasons for not wanting to disclose his identity and qualifications, given the comments aimed at the person merely suspected of being him.

I hope you don't leave, as I think you've made some good points. I meant to post a while back agreeing with you about the problems a jury faces when it comes to disagreements between scientific experts: it's difficult to see how a layperson could reach a conclusion about something that even the experts can't agree on.
 
katy_did said:
I think Kevin_Lowe is quite right, though, that it's the argument that matters, not his qualifications. I also fully understand his reasons for not wanting to disclose his identity and qualifications, given the comments aimed at the person merely suspected of being him.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
katy_did said:
I think someone posted a while back that Guede is about 5"11 or 5"11 and a half, somewhere around there. Tallish but not huge.
Click to expand...

5'11 or round about there isn't tall by any stretch of the imagination. For Holland it would actually be a bit below average height i believe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom