Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Indeed it's not trivial, that's why I relied on what Rinaldi did. But as we see a millimeter or two one or other way doesn't really change the outcome - the mismatch of the big toe is still prominent.

PS. Photoshop is much fun, guess it's never too late to learn something new

Actually the match with the big toe is impressive if I take the Rinaldi's print 99 millimteres reference by the letter, thus use a scale bigger only of a ratio 1,03:1,00 than the one I previously used (still smaller than yours).

 

[treehorn]

...You don't necessarily need to know what the facts are to spot a flawed argument...

Massei repeatedly engages in tenuous speculation, announces a conclusion as certain, and then moves on as if it really was certain.

By doing so repeatedly he conjured "proof beyond reasonable doubt" out of a chain of suppositions every one of which should be doubted by any reasonable person.

"Tenuous speculation"

"moves on as if it really was certain"

"chain of suppositions"

Those phrases are perfectly applicable to YOUR claims in respect of the ligatures, what Massei saw or did not see in the autopsy video and whether medical experts decided to perjure themselves during the trial.

When I joined the discussion, you were taking people to task for not making "evidence-based" arguments replete with cites to "peer-reviewed journals."

Then you turned round and started making unsupported claims about the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, the contents of the unseen autopsy vid, the inner-thoughts of the medical experts and Massei during the proceedings, etc.!

You've ignored my post addressing this turn of events for some 2 weeks now.

I need to know what the rules are here at JREF. I can see no consistency here.

Here's hoping you'll 'resolve the paradox' for me as soon as your patient load allows.

 

[Mary_H]

You really think I'm making it up?!

That there's NO court record of Knox's conviction for "Residential Disturbance"?!

That I would do that when it's so easy (and free) to check, online, from the comfort of your own office or home?!

Whatever.

Is it easy and comfortable or does it take five hours and a photobucket account? Make up your mind.

Yes, that is what I really think, and I am pretty sure that is what everyone else really thinks, too. It's odd that this is so important to you, yet you never thought to make a copy of it the other times you looked it up and saw it on line.

Tell you what. If you want to win this one, all you have to do is try to tear yourself away from your daily viewing of The Big Lebowski, get in your car, zip across the 520 bridge, go to the King County Courthouse (do you still have parking privileges?), go to whichever floor it is where they keep the records now, and have them make you a copy. Then you can scan it and have it on your hard drive for the next time you try to make the claim.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[RoseMontague]

1) SOME of Knox's behavior, prior to the murder, appears to be consistent with the notion that she was beginning to show the signs and symptoms of, inter alia, antisocial PD.

I am still trying to figure out how hosting a party is anti-social.

 

[treehorn]

May I take it that you are unable to provide any citations for your contention that it is appropriate to refer to civil infractions as 'convictions'?

I find myself baffled that a veritable Titan of the court such as yourself appears unable or unwilling to do so. I confess myself to be disappointed, Sir.

You do not understand the meaning of the word, "conviction."

(HINT: the Seattle Municipal Code you've been quoting spells it out for you.)

 

[Withnail1969]

You do not understand the meaning of the word, "conviction."

(HINT: the Seattle Municipal Code you've been quoting spells it out for you.)

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.505: It is unlawful for any person to knowingly allow real property under one’s possession or control to be used for a residential disturbance, as defined in SMC Section 25.08.225

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.225:
“Residential disturbance” means a gathering of more than one (1) person at a residential property located in a single family or multifamily zone, as defined SMC Section 23.84.048 between the hours of 10:00 P.M., (11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights) and 7:00 A.M., at which noise associated with the gathering is frequent, repetitive or continuous and is audible to a person of normal hearing at a distance of seventy-five (75) feet or more from the property.

Penalties: Officers may issue a civil infraction (citation) on the spot. The fine for the infraction is $250. A person who continues to be in violation of this ordinance after receiving an infraction or who again violates this ordinance within 24 hours of receiving an infraction, can be charged with a crime.

 

[RoseMontague]

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.505: It is unlawful for any person to knowingly allow real property under one’s possession or control to be used for a residential disturbance, as defined in SMC Section 25.08.225

Seattle Municipal Code 25.08.225:
“Residential disturbance” means a gathering of more than one (1) person at a residential property located in a single family or multifamily zone, as defined SMC Section 23.84.048 between the hours of 10:00 P.M., (11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights) and 7:00 A.M., at which noise associated with the gathering is frequent, repetitive or continuous and is audible to a person of normal hearing at a distance of seventy-five (75) feet or more from the property.

Penalties: Officers may issue a civil infraction (citation) on the spot. The fine for the infraction is $250. A person who continues to be in violation of this ordinance after receiving an infraction or who again violates this ordinance within 24 hours of receiving an infraction, can be charged with a crime.

She got a ticket and paid the fine. I still think your are starting from a false premise that hosting a party shows anti-social behavior. So really, I don't care if she got a ticket for noise.

 

[Mary_H]

i am still trying to figure out how hosting a party is anti-social.

It's not letting me post laughing faces right now, but I want to say LOL!!!

 

[treehorn]

I am still trying to figure out how hosting a party is anti-social.

Love the way you frame that.

I feel silly spelling it out for you:

Hosting a party is not "antisocial" vis-à-vis your, shall we say, 'like-minded' guests.

Hosting a party in a manner that "frightens"/ "disturbs"/ violates the civil and property rights of your neighbors to the point where they have to call the police is, without doubt, "antisocial."

PS A lack of respect for the rights of others (and "boundaries") is a characteristic of sociopathy.

 

[Withnail1969]

She got a ticket and paid the fine. I still think your are starting from a false premise that hosting a party shows anti-social behavior. So really, I don't care if she got a ticket for noise.

The trouble is treehorn keeps stating that Amanda's noise citation was a 'conviction'. He says the clue is in the statute I just quoted, but I don't see it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Love the way you frame that.

I feel silly spelling it out for you:

Hosting a party is not "antisocial" vis-à-vis your, shall we say, 'like-minded' guests.

Hosting a party in a manner that "frightens"/ "disturbs"/ violates the civil and property rights of your neighbors to the point where they have to call the police is, without doubt, "antisocial."

PS A lack of respect for the rights of others (and "boundaries") is a characteristic of sociopathy.

A party is a social and that is not anti-social. When I was in school the best socials were the loudest. I am not concerned that noise tickets may lead to murder but it is obvious that you make that connection and consider it important enough to devote many posts to the same subject.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Actually the match with the big toe is impressive if I take the Rinaldi's print 99 millimteres reference by the letter, thus use a scale bigger only of a ratio 1,03:1,00 than the one I previously used (still smaller than yours).

In my latest pic the actual size of the Raffaele's print is only 97 bathmat pic's millimeters. 1,03:1 ratio would make it 96 mm. While Rinaldi measures it as 99 mm. We can assume such a significant Rinaldi's error, but frankly, I don't think shaving another 1% would help. Most importantly it would not suddenly exclude Guede.

 

[Tricky]

A few off-topic posts moved to AAH. Given the history of this thread, I would think you folks would be a little more careful.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[RoseMontague]

Is joining social networking sites like MySpace and FaceBook anti-social? How about learning other languages to be able to socialize with people from other countries? Or traveling to other countries and meeting new people and making new friends? For that matter, participating in plays while you are in prison for a crime you did not commit?

I just don't see Amanda as anti-social. I think it is a false premise.

 

[Machiavelli]

In my latest pic the actual size of the Raffaele's print is only 97 bathmat pic's millimeters. 1,03:1 ratio would make it 96 mm. While Rinaldi measures it as 99 mm. We can assume such a significant Rinaldi's error, but frankly, I don't think shaving another 1% would help. Most importantly it would not suddenly exclude Guede.

I'll show you how it come out with with a 99 mm reference. I did it with approx. 96 mm widht in Sollecito's print, but with 99 (+3%) it is even better.
My assessment on your pictures is that Guede's print has 5 visible mismatches at first sight where the Sollecito's print has matches or much closer results. Among these mismatches, the width of the bathmat print is bigger than Guede's (look at the right outline).
In addition to the 5 areas of mismatch, there are other logical clues, some of them regard the big toe: in regard to the particle on the right of the toe, the impressive aspect is its coincidence of its outline with the outline of the decoration embossed. Suggesting thus it was produced by contact with a more ample surface. Another aspect, is Guede's second toe, totally missing the particle, and a third aspect is the continuity of the stain betwen particle and the larger toe mark. Finally, the lack of small toee is a point suggesting a general analogy, because Guede's footp puts a considerable body weight on the second toes, so I have to wonder how likely it is that he didn't pick up any blood on his small toes at all when the rest of the foot got complelety wet. I am lead to think the print was from a foot that didn't use to have much contact on its small toes.

 

[Justinian2]

Love the way you frame that.

I feel silly spelling it out for you:

Hosting a party is not "antisocial" vis-à-vis your, shall we say, 'like-minded' guests.

Hosting a party in a manner that "frightens"/ "disturbs"/ violates the civil and property rights of your neighbors to the point where they have to call the police is, without doubt, "antisocial."

PS A lack of respect for the rights of others (and "boundaries") is a characteristic of sociopathy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Wikipedia defines the Antisocial personality disorder as follows:

Persistent lying or stealing
Apparent lack of remorse[3] or empathy for others
Cruelty to animals[4]
Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
A history of childhood conduct disorder
Recurring difficulties with the law
Promiscuity
Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
Inability to tolerate boredom
Disregard for right and wrong
Poor or abusive relationships
Irresponsible work behavior
Disregard for safety

Trouble is, there isn’t a person or child on earth that doesn’t do these things. Some might perceive that playing with a dog is “cruelty to animals”. Others might perceive a tattletale as having Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others. In fact, some look at all the milder infractions of the above antisocial characteristics as play that explores boundaries. Children and adults need to know how far they can go; they gently push the limits. You see, the above criterion depends on extent, amplitude, degree, amount, and frequency. The code also depends on circumstance. For example, if your brother has recently died, you are expected to be numb to ordinary emotion. In grief you won’t care about minor traffic violations, promiscuity, relationships, safety, etc.

Degree, frequency and circumstance have to be factored in to those criteria.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

.....And the next day, the world learned of the DNA trace on the bra fastener:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575287/DNA-link-in-Meredith-Kercher-case.html

Thanks for the links, Charlie. I have just read something from the TELEGRAPH report you linked and am wondering whether I am the only one that did not know this:

''....However, the fastener was not from the bloody bra which was discovered near Miss Kercher's body, and which allegedly bears traces of Guede's DNA on its strap.''

Can someone shed any light on this for me, please? Is the above true? Was it from ANOTHER Bra then?

Although I acknowledge that people may have become sidetracked by what some might refer to as a resident 'spammer' or troll, I am genuinely intrigued by the statement in the Telegraph which Charlie linked to earlier. So much so that I am repeating my request as many may have missed it earlier in the midst of the deluge of posts.

Please will someone clear this up for me? Was the clasp from another bra? Surely that should have connotations if this is true?

I am truly perplexed by this.

Someone help out. Please.

Thanks!

 

[RoseMontague]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Wikipedia defines the Antisocial personality disorder as follows:



Trouble is, there isn’t a person or child on earth that doesn’t do these things. Some might perceive that playing with a dog is “cruelty to animals”. Others might perceive a tattletale as having Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others. In fact, some look at all the milder infractions of the above antisocial characteristics as play that explores boundaries. Children and adults need to know how far they can go; they gently push the limits. You see, the above criterion depends on extent, amplitude, degree, amount, and frequency. The code also depends on circumstance. For example, if your brother has recently died, you are expected to be numb to ordinary emotion. In grief you won’t care about minor traffic violations, promiscuity, relationships, safety, etc.

Degree, frequency and circumstance have to be factored in to those criteria.

Excellent point. However, that list just focuses on the anti-social behavior. Amanda exhibited plenty of evidence of positively social behavior.

 

[Withnail1969]

Although I acknowledge that people may have become sidetracked by what some might refer to as a resident 'spammer' or troll, I am genuinely intrigued by the statement in the Telegraph which Charlie linked to earlier. So much so that I am repeating my request as many may have missed it earlier in the midst of the deluge of posts.

Please will someone clear this up for me? Was the clasp from another bra? Surely that should have connotations if this is true?

I am truly perplexed by this.

Someone help out. Please.

Thanks!

Possibly inaccurate reporting? To my knowledge nobody has disputed that the clasp was from the bloodstained bra Meredith was wearing at the time of the murder.

 

[RoseMontague]

Although I acknowledge that people may have become sidetracked by what some might refer to as a resident 'spammer' or troll, I am genuinely intrigued by the statement in the Telegraph which Charlie linked to earlier. So much so that I am repeating my request as many may have missed it earlier in the midst of the deluge of posts.

Please will someone clear this up for me? Was the clasp from another bra? Surely that should have connotations if this is true?

I am truly perplexed by this.

Someone help out. Please.

Thanks!

No. It was from the bra she was wearing when she was assaulted. The news report is in error (as many of them were).