Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

not even a scientific background in the literature fields before searching and assessing scientific topics.

What "scientific background in the literature fields" did the Judges have before "assessing scientific topics"?

 

[RoseMontague]

What "scientific background in the literature fields" did the Judges have before "assessing scientific topics"?

I would start with How To Read Literature Like a Professor if you are interested. It is a good beginning resource.

According to me, I think the question that is constantly brought forth by the 18½ "judges" (I only credit Massei with the ½) agreeing on the "overwhelming" evidence is one of context. The previous judges to the main trial also suffered from the lack of discovery from the prosecution. It was only discovered half way through the main trial that the "bloody" footprints were all tested for blood and all were negative. It was only then that they would find out that Sefanoni used an unproven and untested method of LCN testing after receiving many "too low" readings to show Meredith's "DNA" on the knife blade. Even the Supreme court used evidence of Raffaele's shoe print on the pillow to make a decision. A shoe print that was later shown to be Rudy's. The early judges all relied on the evidence of stomach contents (see my previous quotes on this) to better pinpoint a TOD, but mistakenly used the end time of the meal as the beginning point of the measurement and then even mis-stated that time as around 9PM because Meredith would have left to go home by then. They did not have the benefit of the defense expert's testimony on Meredith's phone activity which also pointed to a much earlier TOD.

I am left wondering if the previous judges would have made the leaps of faith that Massei did after hearing the defense arguments on the three "super" witnesses and the forensic evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

A good example of reading between the lines could be the question I posed to Michiavelli shortly after Michiavelli joined the discussion. That question revolved around the question posed by Filomena as related in this quote by Massei.

Reassured, therefore, also on the aspect which was most important to Amanda and Raffaele, Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)

If you recall I had provided quite a bit of background related to this subject and also posed a question as to the accuracy of the translation, if he could have possibly meant that question rather than the question. The question I posed still remains unanswered but my opinion at this point remains that Massei was being disingenuous.

 

[Machiavelli]

What "scientific background in the literature fields" did the Judges have before "assessing scientific topics"?

The Judges didn't deal directly with scientific topics, this would be impossible. They had several real experts they could question directy in presence - including the experts called by the defence - they had their written reports, and they had access to the direct data (photos, autopsy etc.). The judges also put some experts in direct confront with each other. So st least they had before them all of scientific reserach that was made on the actual case ad brough by the various parties and accessed all the collected data.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you recall I had provided quite a bit of background related to this subject and also posed a question as to the accuracy of the translation, if he could have possibly meant that question rather than the question. The question I posed still remains unanswered but my opinion at this point remains that Massei was being disingenuous.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point.

 

[Matthew Best]

The Judges didn't deal directly with scientific topics, this would be impossible. They had several real experts they could question directy in presence - including the experts called by the defence - they had their written reports, and they had access to the direct data (photos, autopsy etc.). The judges also put some experts in direct confront with each other. So st least they had before them all of scientific reserach that was made on the actual case ad brough by the various parties and accessed all the collected data.

So the answer to my question is "none". Thank you.

Apparently it's OK for judges to decide on matters with no scientific background, but not OK for anonymous posters on internet forums (whose scientific background may well be greater than that of the judges).

 

[pilot padron]

One can't help wondering why, if there are so many good arguments for guilt, we keep having to read bad arguments for guilt (such as have been argued over in the last few pages) as well. Wouldn't the cause of the so-called "guilters" be better served by skipping over the gossip, innuendo and outright falsehoods and concentrating on the evidence?

Matthew, you are certainly entitled to your well stated opinion that I also seem entitled to respectfully disagree with.

As mentioned, having followed arguments on several board for a rather long period and as a result of your opinion, I have just scanned again the lat 30 or so pages here.

My opinion is 'fact versus fodder' (for tabloids) content is pretty much consistent and not markedly different 'for the past few pages'.

The honorable 'evidence oriented' justification for endless citations on even the least important points versus the seemingly less than honorable objective simply to smother the minority, less popular views was IMHO necessary, productive, and conducted with mutual respect and civility.

Your opinion here, then continues with the IMHO somewhat illogical entreaty to 'guilters to necessarily advance stronger, i.e more evidence based arguments.

Again like the Apple pie and Mom, who could object to better arguments ?
However, my humble perception of lack of logical thinking with that is in effect the guilters arguments pretty decisively won the first round...........
like unanimously.

Would not logic 101 texts suggest that per chance the real burden to 'advance better arguments' now lies with the FOAKers for Round 2 ??

Finally, the inability to immediately pop off citation after citation, and/or the opinion that it simply becomes inordinately cumbersome and/or not cost efficient to continue search does not (IMHO) fit the widely accepted definition of a "falsehood"
Mary's last post on the matter was particularly informative

Best Regards

 

[RoseMontague]

The defense did not concede that Meredith's DNA was found on the knife blade:

Only after the execution of genetic investigations, the alleged discovery
profile of Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife, led the prosecutor to
locate right in finding the murder weapon 36.

Track B allegedly found on the blade of the find proved 36 <<too
Low>> (low - too low) and also turned out not to be blood.

The literal meaning of the reported about the track B is not
leaves room for doubt on the basis of information provided by machinery
used for quantification at trace B of finding 36
there was no DNA or other DNA found was not sufficient for a
subsequent amplification.

R - I think that should stop the investigation, analysis ....Because if
quantity is too low in this still could be microliter
zero, too low means that below 10 picograms could
DNA also does not exist>> (September 14, 2009 hearing transcript, p..
46).

These quotes are from Amanda's appeal (boldings mine).

 

[Amazer]

The defense did concede not that Meredith's DNA was found on the knife blade:








These quotes are from Amanda's appeal (boldings mine).

Rose,

It looks like you are using google translate or some such service. I'd be very careful with that. Machine translation is notoriously poor it giving proper translations and it's fairly common to even distort the meaning of the original completely.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
If you recall I had provided quite a bit of background related to this subject and also posed a question as to the accuracy of the translation, if he could have possibly meant that question rather than the question. The question I posed still remains unanswered but my opinion at this point remains that Massei was being disingenuous.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6356679&postcount=6830

If I recall you had indicated you would address this question before you tackled Kevin's question on stomach contents and time of death. I understand you got sidetracked. I am still interested and would appreciate your expertise on this.

 

[pilot padron]

Rose, since you are here may I publicly applaud your recent defense of animal lovers on either side of this question.

Your subtle rebuke of the post here that suggested a desire for a deadly virus, and your effort to personally carry your disavowal to the other board gets a strong vote of approval from this 'newbee'

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose,

It looks like you are using google translate or some such service. I'd be very careful with that. Machine translation is notoriously poor it giving proper translations and it's fairly common to even distort the meaning of the original completely.

Both katy_did and Michiavelli are members here. If they are interested I will provide the original Italian quotes. I don't expect that all four of these are completely distorted, however.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

''......Would not logic 101 texts suggest that per chance the real burden to 'advance better arguments' now lies with the FOAKers for Round 2 ??...''

Hi and welcome to the board. My, you have been busy in your little time here, haven't you? Congratulations.

Unfortunately, I tend not to contribute anywhere near the volume of posts I would like to but certainly read and digest a lot of the material posted on this thread in particular.

I notice that you appeared to previously object to the term 'guilters' yet you quite happily use the extremely offensive term 'foakers'?

Would you say that this approach is fair?

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, since you are here may I publicly applaud your recent defense of animal lovers on either side of this question.

Your subtle rebuke of the post here that suggested a desire for a deadly virus, and your effort to personally carry your disavowal to the other board gets a strong vote of approval from this 'newbee'

I have a feeling we are going to get along just fine. Welcome to the discussion. You have already made some excellent points. Just curious on the choice of your posting name. Any particular meaning? I am intrigued.

 

[christianahannah]

A good example of reading between the lines could be the question I posed to Michiavelli shortly after Michiavelli joined the discussion. That question revolved around the question posed by Filomena as related in this quote by Massei.



If you recall I had provided quite a bit of background related to this subject and also posed a question as to the accuracy of the translation, if he could have possibly meant that question rather than the question. The question I posed still remains unanswered but my opinion at this point remains that Massei was being disingenuous.

Rose could you explain the significance between that and the. I am not sure I understand the difference you are making.

 

[pilot padron]

Hi and welcome to the board. My, you have been busy in your little time here, haven't you? Congratulations.

Unfortunately, I tend not to contribute anywhere near the volume of posts I would like to but certainly read and digest a lot of the material posted on this thread in particular.

I notice that you appeared to previously object to the term 'guilters' yet you quite happily use the extremely offensive term 'foakers'?

Would you say that this approach is fair?

Understood, and accepted as 'probably' unfair.

When and if the 'guilters' terminology becomes history, I will make every effort to similarly dispose of my 'FOAKers', and will sincerely try to limit it in the interim since it offends you.

Maybe because I lurked for so long, my 'dam' has just burst',
seriously, this point is also is understood and accepted.

Volume will dramatically decrease, balanced only by customary courtesy to reply as much as possible to direct questions.

PS: For my personal edification; how does one 'happily' use particular terminology

 

[pilot padron]

I have a feeling we are going to get along just fine. Welcome to the discussion. You have already made some excellent points. Just curious on the choice of your posting name. Any particular meaning? I am intrigued.

Fully cognizant and in somewhat agreement with Mr Lowe's concerns about 'nutbags', and his pointed suggestions to Rose about security against same, may I respectfully put your fair question on hold.

May I hasten to add that definitely not present company, but nearly everyone I have ever interacted with does not qualify for Mr Lowe's very descriptive, but possible overstated 'word picture' of a 'nutbag', and/or communities of same.

Compliments are always appreciated by all of us, especially coming from one such as yourself who has a long and distinguished track record of posting.

PS:
I personally much prefer your latest avatar with the carefully coiffed red locks

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose could you explain the significance between that and the. I am not sure I understand the difference you are making.

The only question referenced several times refers to this quote:

To her (Filomena’s) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.

However the implied question in this quote is that Filomena asked Amanda if she had tried to call Meredith and she either did not answer or answered no. If he meant that question rather than the question in the following quote, it would be clear that it was referring to a different question.

Reassured, therefore, also on the aspect which was most important to Amanda and Raffaele, Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)

If you read that previous post and the three linked to that one it will give a better context for my question.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fully cognizant and in somewhat agreement with Mr Lowe's concerns about 'nutbags', and his pointed suggestions to Rose about security against same, may I respectfully put your fair question on hold.

May I hasten to add that definitely not present company, but nearly everyone I have ever interacted with does not qualify for Mr Lowe's very descriptive, but possible overstated 'word picture' of a 'nutbag', and/or communities of same.

Compliments are always appreciated by all of us, especially coming from one such as yourself who has a long and distinguished track record of posting.

PS:
I personally much prefer your latest avatar with the carefully coiffed red locks

Yes, I decided to go back to red from green, consistent with my posting names as I have used ScarletHill, RedMountain, and Rougemont in the past few years which have already been stated elsewhere.

 

[christianahannah]

Thank you all for the enjoyable exchange of information today.

Gonna sign off for tonight, but fully intend to reply to anything directed specifically to me as soon as I get back.

In regard to earlier 'citation' requested, I have taken time to re-read and study the entire two day testimony of Amanda.
Particular emphasis given to the very lengthy, often rambling/off question and much argumentative exchanges between Amanda, Mignini, Ghirga, and even the Judge about the 'cuffs'

Although I have not yet found the definitive site that confirmed Police Officer's present, I intend to continue searching, and definitely did read it somewhere (other than above slurred 'echo chambers')
If necessary I will certainly humbly have a hearty meal of crow, and express regrets for breach of this 'evidence based community' customs, but we are not *there* (yet).

I might add as an addendum, I am amazed that the poster requesting citation was able to so quickly report back he had searched the entire testimony.
Guess my college speed reading has really deteriorated over the years.

Thanks again, and regards to all

On March 13, 2009 Amanda makes a spontaneous declaration which contradicts prior testimony from the officers.

From Perugia-Shock

Amanda speaks out
Amanda doesn't see it in the same way.
Buonasera, thank you Mr President and everybody. I just wanted to insist that witnesses are not saying the truth about the night between the 5th and 6th of November. I wanted to clarify on some events that for me are very important. There are hours and hours... before Raffaele would have said that I wasn't with him. They were very very aggressive on this story of the messages. They called me a liar. Donnino told me of the trauma she received and that would have been the same for me too. Than there are these scappellotti (little slaps) that I really received on my head. Thank you Mr President.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/knoxed-down.html

Frank goes on to write this from the same blog post:

Truth needed
Mignini didn't appreciate the new accusation from Amanda and asked the Judge to send the statement to the prosecutor (another one). Another possible slander for Amanda, theoretically. Her defence agreed with an inquest to be opened on the fact, so finally the recording will be produced and the truth about this will be known. If no record will be produced I guess Ficarra and company will have something to explain to Amanda, and to the law.
But anyway, it's interesting that the dirty bitch became a liar and that the hard hits became scappellotti. A very feeble term. But still something against the law. Something that may change the story.

There are also confirmations of this declaration from Murder In Italy by Candance Dempsey, pages 284, 285, 289; and PMF "Impromtu Statements In Court By Ak & RS" http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131

Barbie Nadeau posted an article in July 2010 which contained the following sentence:

When asked to by the judge while she was on the stand, she could not identify the police officer even though all twelve officers who were present during her interrogation were in the courtroom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-04/amanda-knoxs-parents-defamation-charges/

If Nadeau is writing about Amanda's June 2009 testimony before the court, Massei does ask Amanda to describe or identify the officer who hit her, however, in the testimony transcripts I cannot find mention of the officers being present (that doesn't mean they weren't present, there just is no mention of such). I would imagine during the March 13, 2009 spontaneous declaration by Amanda the officers were present in court (thought again, I do not know for sure). I do not know if she was asked by the court to identify which officer hit her on March 13 but I doubt it since she was not on the stand.