Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

You have it exactly backwards: We are determining what the evidence says and working forward from there. There are no "desired meanings". I hope that helps.

You and I both know that a crucial element in the quest for scientific knowledge is actually the desire to challenge any given proposition, and to try to prove oneself wrong. I started examining the stomach/intestinal evidence with an above-average knowledge of the workings of the human digestive system - but by no means a deep scientific knowledge. I therefore trawled a lot of research to further my knowledge, and this process necessitated looking for instances where Meredith's known stomach/intestinal contents could possibly have correlated with a ToD over 4.5 hours after the beginning of her pizza meal.

I couldn't find anything which came anywhere near to this sort of timing, while in contrast I found plenty of solid research which indicated that the stomach/intestinal contests were entirely consistent with a ToD between around 40 and 180 minutes after the start of the pizza meal. And since I knew that Meredith was still alive some 150 minutes after the start of the meal, I reasoned that she almost certainly died within the 150 and 180 minute mark.

 

[pilot padron]

Is this the flak you are referring to?

If so, I'm not sure it can be called flak, if you solicited it by asking the question.

Not every post is responded to.

I reread the post in question and it didn't raise any red flags with me.

Matthew Best is a nice person.

My apologies for being forward. Yes, I am of the female persuasion. But it's okay for men to call each other "dear," too.

That "feather" of a response fits not my definition of flak; there is more.

Nearly my entire lengthy post explained in detail how it was incredibly easy to believe what he stated was *hard* to believe,

In addition to the feather wave he then just ignored all my explanations.

He now instead wants to discuss 'size' of Marriott effort; another totally new request.
While leaving those already explained as unanswered, he therefore in my mind accepts what I wrote.

If you also see no red flags, then the first two of the 4 Marriott activities that he finds hard to believe, and I explained in depth are now proven as not hard; i.e easy.

I will soon address advocacy groups and paid bloggers.

Does my fading aging memory serve me that I have read scores of times on several sources that you were actually accused of having personal experience with the last above ??
Mary, my friend I would never "echo" that absurdity about you.

I still have some crow au gratin remaining which I now (based on his silence and your no red flags) offer to LJ with barely containable glee

May I add that this " ignore,dodge, ramble and run tactic" by L.J was 'ever so' reminiscent of Amanda's complete testimony which I re-read and even re-watched some recently

Very much heartily concur your complimentary kudo to Mr Best

Hopefully we are all becoming more tolerant and accepting about all our fellow residents of all races and persuasions in this great Country and our whole world

PS;Does my fading aging memory serve me that I have read scores of times on several sources that you were actually accused of having personal experience with the last above ??
Mary, my friend, in the words of Mr Moore..as sure as I am sitting here... I would never "echo" that absurdity about you.


Speaking of minorities could I impose on your always sense of helpfulness to guide me (a minority opinion holder here) to the technique for quoting entire post and then inserting my thoughts at points within the entire quote, and not just at end.
THX

 

[Machiavelli]

If you agree on an earlier time of death why bother even arguing about this. Isn't it really a mote point?

In fact, in a sense, it is. But some people, like Kevin Lowe, insisted a lot on this point, and also repeatedly addressed me with arguments, objections and provocations referred to this point. So why not make clear my position about it in all aspects?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I am suggesting it was primarily police(/prosecution?) incompetence rather than a deliberate intent to mislead the media.

Fair enough. If so, we can add it to the growing list...........

 

[Katody Matrass]

Please cite. I have seen no such.

Here you go:

In any case, police did find a receipt for ACE bleach dated Nov 4, 2007 (8:15 am) in RS's apartment

PMF forum search works quite well.



edit: Now I noticed the link leads to the "dead rodents and roadkill" page. Fair warning to anyone concerned that they might feel the page is offensive to Meredith Kercher's memory.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Fair enough. If so, we can add it to the growing list...........

I was about to write "nice shot, he's going down in flames"
but I must say he's smoking but getting away. 1 unconfirmed kill

 

[pilot padron]

capealadin's latest post, in which she uses the term "innocenters," reminded me I meant to respond to this.

"Guilter" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. I mean, you guys do favor the position that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, right? It's just reflects a fact. Innocenters is the opposite, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to represent the advocacy position.

I think the other poster went into some detail about why "FOAKer" is offensive (although, personally, I don't care what anybody calls me). Not only does it refer to a certain epithet that is not considered complimentary, but it also implies that all of Amanda and Raffaele's advocates are members of the Friends of Amanda, and that is not the case.

Very sincerely, Mary I did not ever previously connect the acronym for friends of Amanda with any 'certain epithet', although now I 'got it', and already previously agreed to cease and desist.

Mary, I guess you are just a more worldly ,'experienced' person with lots more 'street savvy than I despite my suspected 'longer tooth' age

PS:
note the deliberately neutral gender reference..."person"

 

[Machiavelli]

a review of Candace Dempsey's book

you might have read the review by this blogger. She seems very polite.

http://bleedingespresso.com/2010/06/

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately when I click the link this is the message I get:



Is anybody else having this problem?

I think the Chinese government is in the habit of placing blocks on people's IP addresses. I can't imagine that any website in Europe or the Americas would engage in such totalitarian tactics though. There must be an innocent explanation........

 

[pilot padron]

Unfortunately when I click the link this is the message I get:

Is anybody else having this problem?

Rose, I am no cyber geek
Just a one finger plinker....

But rather than looking in China would not the obvious question be.....
Have you been banned ????

 

[Machiavelli]

Fair enough. If so, we can add it to the growing list..........

There is actually something more to say about this. The dicothomy incompetence/playing with the media is not entirely correct. There is another element of the game, a method. The fact is the Italian investigators in these cases pursue one main achievement: confession, or contradictions by the suspect. This accumulation of dubious elements stacked in an accusation scenario are not directed to the press, they are directed to the defence, as a method, in order to put pressure and induce the suspect to provide more evidence. The defence is forced to care about multiple possible elements at the sme time, many of them are void of significance or can be used as simple checks, but through this process the defensive capabilities on the actual sticky points are lowered.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

In message 8817 you wrote, "And by the way, Halides, Ghirga is in a perfect position to talk about the Court system, as he knows how it works. Can you cite where in Italy, a lawyer would be in jeapordy if he did so?"

In message 8924 you wrote, "Can you name the police who were supposedly there? What time did the police arrive, and what time did they leave?"

I do not have information on the names of the police or when they were there, and I do not know anyone who does have this information. Did you read the article by Andrea Vogt? Did you see the part where she wrote, "it further damages the credibility of investigators," implying that the police were there? Can you think of anyone else who had access? Before you say that maybe the elder Mr. Sollecito did, I would urge you to remember that he was out of town.

You are ignoring the citations I have given you on the Committee to Protect Journalists, the other citation that cover Stardust, and the number of people PM Mignini has sued. Do you think that this committee is wrong? Why do you think that Mr. Maori did not state that the police accessed the fiies?

Some of your questions directly addressed what Mr. Ghirga said, but others were more general (see highlighted portion above). I grant that my answer was indirect. Yet, the cumulative effect of the citations builds the case that one cannot be too bold in one's criticisms of some figures in ILE. You don't have to agree with my assessment, but the favor of giving it due consideration is requested.

I don't have any information on Ms. Popovic other than what I wrote; therefore, I did not respond to this question.

I haven't discussed journalists..you have. That's part of your rigmarole . I haven't brought up who entered the apartment, and used the computer. You did, as a further part of your rigmarole. What you HAVEN'T done, is address the cites I have asked you for. Pertaining to the questions I ASKED FOR. Not the subjects YOU want to bring up. Let's do this in a fair way. Answer, give RELIABLE cites for my firstly asked questions/statements. THEN it's your turn. No waffling around other points which, at this point, I have not brought up, and which DO NOT address my points. I am asking for cites directly pointing to this case, with cites pertaining to attorneys being in jeapordy, if critisizing the outcomes of a case. Thank you. I hope we are now clear.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

With all due respect to a poster of your longevity and one probably possessing "ever so" much more knowledge of protocal here...

I was admonished by another member for using the terminology "FOAKer" here. As a neophyte, I readily concurred that it might be, as noted in the exchange, probably no less offensive than the term 'guilters'

Was I mistaken about offensiveness, protocol, longevity endowed poster privileges and/or all the above ??

Without wishing to raise the topic again, as I am the poster who you refer to, I would like to clarify.

First of all, YOU objected to the term 'Guilters'.

SUBSEQUENT to your objection, YOU wrote the term 'Foakers'

I merely asked you why you felt it was okay to write 'Foakers' but you seemed offended by the term 'Guilters'

After your response/'explanation' to me, I responded courteously again - without reply.

P.S. Please do not twist the situation to be something else - I most certainly did NOT 'admonish' you; I pointed out the irony, that's all.

P.P.S. In my experience, a little less paranoia when posting on this thread can go a long way.

By the way, it's protocol

 

[lane99]

If you agree on an earlier time of death why bother even arguing about this. Isn't it really a mote point?

The moot points, as far as that poster is concerned, go far beyond just the time of death.

He's suggested he would still consider Knox and the boyfriend guilty even if both of them weren't even at the crime scene while the victim was being attacked.

 

[pilot padron]

I think the Chinese government is in the habit of placing blocks on people's IP addresses. I can't imagine that any website in Europe or the Americas would engage in such totalitarian tactics though. There must be an innocent explanation........

OOOPS another "less than evidenced based/oriented "fact"

The WSH West Seattle Herald *routinely* blocks comments about Steve Shay's articles via IP Addy if an 'undesired' poster tries to submit comments some times as 'anonymous'.

FWIW, last time this shown to me the first comment that day was from none other than Mr Chris Mellas.

CITE: Personal observation shown to me by aclose acquaintance with my own two eyes and ears
I was a personally present witness to this happening *more than once*
The message I was shown clearly stated "IP address blocked"

 

[act1roson]

Sorry to interrupt.

Could someone direct me to this group's discussion of the murder room's crime scene photographs? I used the search tool, but did not get satisfactory results.

Also, if someone here remembers those discussions, I would appreciate being directed to the best posts from both guilty and innocent perspectives.

I am hoping the discussion of the murder room evidence is as thorough as these stomach contents posts that have taken place recently.

Thanking you in advance.......

 

[pilot padron]

Without wishing to raise the topic again, as I am the poster who you refer to, I would like to clarify.

First of all, YOU objected to the term 'Guilters'.

SUBSEQUENT to your objection, YOU wrote the term 'Foakers'

I merely asked you why you felt it was okay to write 'Foakers' but you seemed offended by the term 'Guilters'

After your response/'explanation' to me, I responded courteously again - without reply.

P.S. Please do not twist the situation to be something else - I most certainly did NOT 'admonish' you; I pointed out the irony, that's all.

P.P.S. In my experience, a little less paranoia when posting on this thread can go a long way.

By the way, it's protocol

Your personal view of what qualifies as 'admonishment', as is your unsolicited psychological analysis respectfully accepted.

Your opinion about my intent to "twist" is respectfully but summarily rejected

Speaking of respect, the nuns in my early grammar school instructed me that the tactful way to correct mis pronunciation or an obvious typographical error was to simply re-use the term with correct spelling to avoid rude unnecessary embarrassment

Citation for evidence based board
Use of a particular word seven times over scores of posts with correct spelling a and mistake on the eighth instance meets commonly accepted usage of typographical error

PS as a neophyte, the intent here is to respond to post and respect poster

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I will soon address advocacy groups and paid bloggers.

Does my fading aging memory serve me that I have read scores of times on several sources that you were actually accused of having personal experience with the last above ??
Mary, my friend I would never "echo" that absurdity about you.

Yes, we have all been accused of it many times. How I wish it were true. I need a job.

I still have some crow au gratin remaining which I now (based on his silence and your no red flags) offer to LJ with barely containable glee

May I add that this " ignore,dodge, ramble and run tactic" by L.J was 'ever so' reminiscent of Amanda's complete testimony which I re-read and even re-watched some recently

Very much heartily concur your complimentary kudo to Mr Best

Hopefully we are all becoming more tolerant and accepting about all our fellow residents of all races and persuasions in this great Country and our whole world

PS;Does my fading aging memory serve me that I have read scores of times on several sources that you were actually accused of having personal experience with the last above ??
Mary, my friend, in the words of Mr Moore..as sure as I am sitting here... I would never "echo" that absurdity about you.

Not sure I follow that one.

To illustrate my point about not all posts being answered: You wrote: "May I add that this " ignore,dodge, ramble and run tactic" by L.J was 'ever so' reminiscent of Amanda's complete testimony which I re-read and even re-watched some recently"

I think it's obvious enough that I would disagree with this opinion that I don't feel the need to disagree with it every time it, or another post like it, appears.

Speaking of minorities could I impose on your always sense of helpfulness to guide me (a minority opinion holder here) to the technique for quoting entire post and then inserting my thoughts at points within the entire quote, and not just at end.
THX

You betcha. Anytime you want to put a passage in a blue box, just put the word quote in brackets [ ] at the beginning of the passage. I am not going to demonstrate it or this passage will be quoted. Then when you want to end the quote, you put /quote in brackets.

 

[Machiavelli]

He's suggested he would still consider Knox and the boyfriend guilty even if both of them weren't even at the crime scene while the victim was being attacked.

Where did I say that?
What I said is different: I said would consider them guilty even if it were proved that the attack occurred exactly at 21:10.

 

[Mary_H]

What I got from Candace's comments about Giacomo's accent was that she could understand his Italian, that is, that she could recognize the words, not that she could understand it to the point of translating it into English.

I want to amend this post I made earlier. A couple of people who know better than I do took the time to tell me that Candace Dempsey speaks Italian well. I'm sorry about any mistaken impression created by my post; I was speaking from lack of knowledge.