Oh. Okay.
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Oh. Okay.
Withnail1969
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 866
I found the court record, as i posted above. there's no record of anything except the bare bones of the citation and the fact that payment was made. No courtroom, no crime, no conviction.
Shouldn't you be on your way to work by now? Please don't be late on our account.
Last edited:
It really doesn't help your point when you lie and exaggerate. Making false claims about a young women's sex life so you can call her a slut is especially nasty and juvenile.
I shouldn't need to remind you that this is JREF, not middle school.
Is it fun to sugarcoat everything?
So you agree, that this was behaviour characteristic of a sociopath?
And what does this have to do with my post?
Notice the word "FINDING"?
That's the COURT's finding (C = "Offense Committed")
To wit, pursuant to a POLICE-issued citation, the Municipal Court of Seattle 'found' that Knox violated the Seattle Municipal Code (duly enacted LAWS), and imposed a penalty.
Police. Court. Unlawful Conduct. Penalized.
~ 4 months BEFORE the murder.
Score 1 for the Antisocial PD theory.
Scorpion NITE
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 288
THREE lines? Are you sure? I assume you are classing a 'line' as a 'sentence'. Sorry to point out some rather poor mathematical skills, but I think you will find that I wrote TWO 'lines'.
The other quotes were not from me - you should make it clear who you are responding to...unless, of course, you also don't know how to multiquote, along with the poor arithmetic. If multi-quoting is too difficult for you, you could simply put the person's name in bold and then underline it? That way, the quotes do not appear as if they were from ME.
Hope you understand.
Thanks.
Withnail1969
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 866
The 'C' would have been automatic since it was the police officer not the court who decided that the violation was committed (see the statute if you are confused about this). In this case there was no 'court', no crime, and no conviction.
moodstream
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 417
Treehorn, are you are saying this is why you believe Knox murdered Kercher, such that if it is proven to be untrue or inapplicable then you will no longer believe Knox is guilty, or that you will have doubts?
Otherwise, are you just pretending to believe your own argument? Is there evidence of a personality disorder that you actually do believe that this argument is supplementing?
The way you are framing it, is it correct for me to believe that if your assertion proves false, you agree that there is no indicator that Knox would commit this crime and it is highly improbable that she did? Is that what you're saying?
Lie? Exaggerate?
"Slut"?1
"Nasty" / "Juvenile" ?!
You've just committed the 2 sins I've been (wrongfully) accused of:
1) you lied and exaggerated: I made no false claims (are you saying Nadeau is wrong?) and I did not call Knox any names, much less, a "slut"
2) you called ME names!
This does not meet the standards set by many of the brighter JREF posters.
Scorpion NITE
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 288
Whaaaaaa? You finally get it??? After pages and pages and several million posts later (note, slight exaggeration), you finally get it?
Scratch that - just read some more posts from you AFTER your 'Oh. Okay'
Clearly still not okay with you then.
Ah, well.
How about if we just say that ALL of us are wrong and you are correct? Will that finally put an end to this?
Your post certainly implied Amanda was a slut, even if you didn't use that exact word.
If your source is Barbie Nadeau, then it's not completely your fault. You were simply repeating the lies and exaggerations of another person.
In the future, I would suggest finding more reliable sources and cross checking your claims.
Withnail1969
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 866
In other news, readers may be interested to know that Transparency International has just released its 2010 report on world corruption.
Italy fell from its previous position of 63rd least corrupt country in the world, to 67th, putting it in the red zone and making it more corrupt than Rwanda.
Italy fell from its previous position of 63rd least corrupt country in the world, to 67th, putting it in the red zone and making it more corrupt than Rwanda.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Then where's the evidence of it? Sex, pot and party noise tickets are not at all uncommon for college students, especially overseas where mommy and daddy can't pop in unexpectedly. What is uncommon is for any of them to be accused of killing a roommate with no discernible motive, no physical evidence, and an abundance of evidence suggesting it was a drifter who fled the country soon thereafter.
THREE lines? Are you sure? I assume you are classing a 'line' as a 'sentence'. Sorry to point out some rather poor mathematical skills, but I think you will find that I wrote TWO 'lines'.
The other quotes were not from me - you should make it clear who you are responding to...unless, of course, you also don't know how to multiquote, along with the poor arithmetic. If multi-quoting is too difficult for you, you could simply put the person's name in bold and then underline it? That way, the quotes do not appear as if they were from ME.
Hope you understand.
Thanks.
Line is translated into "Zeile" (german, my mother language.). The said passage, which I wrote in qutotation marks consists of "drei(three) Zeilen". Maybe row would be a better translation, but, well I`m not sure, I`m not a native English speaker, sorry.
As for your other advices, thanks, you are really smart.
Last edited:
Just what are you implying, another notch for the conspiracy theory? I believe Machiavelli explained this differently and in a way that at least seems plausible to rational people.
When I scale Raffaele's print to 99mm in Autocad all the other dimensions measure exactly as written, so the 99mm is also correct. Autocad is completely accurate in this regard. When I scale Rudy's, the 66.7mm dimension measures 55mm, and all other dimensions are exactly correct. Katody, you will need to scale Raffaele's print up to the 99mm measure to make all other dimensions given measure exactly as Rinaldi said. The one dimension on Rudy's foot is the only error in all measurements.
I also scaled the bathmat to exactly the dimensions stated and cannot reliably fit either print rotationally to make a conclusive fit. Neither work from the ball of foot toward the heel.
Last edited:
Scorpion NITE
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 288
I'm sure 'qutotation marks' was just a typo.
Okay, let's see what I (not you) wrote, shall we? Counting after each line, just so that it is easily understandable.
Must be great to ask questions and then answer them yourself.
That's ONE line.
As for 4 lines, I'm not sure they are warranted.
Okay. That's TWO lines now.
I guess (hope?) that it's clear enough for you to admit your basic error now.
You don't have to admit that you were wrong, of course. However, if you are going to maintain your stance as a 'guilter' and write out more rants like your earlier one, you might want to consider how much weight will be given to your statements if you cannot acknowledge basic errors.
Have a nice evening.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
Sorry wrong number
Treehorn,
Using loaded terms like all-American angel is no way to make an argument. The middle aged person on the train story is a misunderstanding that has been explained and debunked many times (see upthread "no strangers on a train" for example). No such person is on the list of intimate partners that Ms. Knox compiled when she was in fear of having contracted the HIV virus; ergo, no such intimate partner exists. And Daniel was before Raffaele. Your credibility is plummeting rapidly on the basis of the misinformation you have recently provided. A friendly suggestion: if you would acknowledge the errors you have made, it would go some way to restoring your credibility in the future.
post script
One last thing. I don't consider any diagnosis (of sociopathy or whatever) made long-distance to be worth anything. A long distance diagnosis made by someone who lacks training in the relevant discipline would not be worthless. Its value would lie in what it tells us about the person giving it.
Treehorn,
Using loaded terms like all-American angel is no way to make an argument. The middle aged person on the train story is a misunderstanding that has been explained and debunked many times (see upthread "no strangers on a train" for example). No such person is on the list of intimate partners that Ms. Knox compiled when she was in fear of having contracted the HIV virus; ergo, no such intimate partner exists. And Daniel was before Raffaele. Your credibility is plummeting rapidly on the basis of the misinformation you have recently provided. A friendly suggestion: if you would acknowledge the errors you have made, it would go some way to restoring your credibility in the future.
post script
One last thing. I don't consider any diagnosis (of sociopathy or whatever) made long-distance to be worth anything. A long distance diagnosis made by someone who lacks training in the relevant discipline would not be worthless. Its value would lie in what it tells us about the person giving it.
Last edited:
Supernaut
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,271
Indeed.
Trying to make generalised comparisons of size and shape and prove who it was made by is futile, but as you just noted yourself, that hasn't stopped some people going to extraordinary lengths to assert otherwise, so why not counter them with some specifics?
The human foot is a complex, flexible structure comprised of about two dozen individual bones and an even larger number of muscles, ligaments and tendons. The shape of a print someone leaves can vary with what they're doing at the time - for example, if they balance on that foot they're likely roll ('pronate') it from side-to-side (and double the weight put on it), changing the apparent shape of the arch, and varying the pressure exerted by each of the five metatarsals and toes.
Added to that the uncertainty about how the blood got onto the foot, how much of it was bloodied, and the fact that it was impressed on yielding, absorbant surface.
And further, in my opinion it is only a partial print. What at first glance looks like the arch/instep was probably created by blood or bloody water dripping from a trouser hem, or soaked directly into the mat by contact with it (possibly obscuring part of the actual print).
Roughly as below - the outiline of Guede's reference print (the inside of the broad outline) overlayed on the bathmat, the green area indicating the area soaked by his trouser hem.
Whatever, the choices for who made it are Guede, Raffaelle or a bushy-haired stranger.
If we exclude the bushy-haired stranger, then the few correspondences that can be discerned make Guede's a better match than Raff''s - once again; the apparent contact with the floor of the first joint of the big toe, and the distinct cleft in the outline of the forefoot, separating the ball of the big toe from the rest of it.
Anyway, that's enough pedantry for now (geddit?).
I see, I just misunderstood you. Look, in my first post, I wrote three lines/rows in "quotation marks":
("AK didn`t hate MK, there were photos from both of them on AK`s laptop. Moreover AK ended an sms to MK with an "X", which means giving someone a kiss. So, in
fact they were good friends.
And AK is a totally normal college girl. Everyone reacts different to traumatic events; her behaviour was nothing out of the normal." )
and in the same post I referred to this passage as a four-liner (I`m sure, there wil be a superficial four liner response post), so I thought, that your sentence "As for four lines, I`m not sure they are warranted." was referring to my typo in my original post.
Great, that we could clarify this pedantic nonsense.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
Why
LiamG,
I am not sugarcoating anything; I am disputing it. As for people who wish to diagnose someone's being a sociopath at long distance, please see my answer to treehorn, since it applies to your argument as well.
More generally, the problem with this case has been that more people seem to know and care about the cartwheel issue than who know about the fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a year in custody before being formally charged, to pick out one of many possible examples. That decision has been questioned by at student at a well-regarded American law school. What do you think of his reasoning?
Here's another example that came up recently. The American Bar Association has standards for DNA evidence that include release of the electronic data files to the defense. Yet, they have not been released to the defense, despite the prosecution's having nearly three years in which to do so. I am at a loss for why the logic of releasing them should stop at the border of any one particular country. Maybe you can explain it to me.
The fact that you and treehorn want to discuss issues of marginal importance in favor of significant ones makes me pause long enough to ask why. So tell us why. Make your case for why a noise citation or a cartwheel are more important than a DNA test that can never be repeated or a bra clasp recovered from a room that looks as if a whirlwind went through, to give two more examples.
LiamG,
I am not sugarcoating anything; I am disputing it. As for people who wish to diagnose someone's being a sociopath at long distance, please see my answer to treehorn, since it applies to your argument as well.
More generally, the problem with this case has been that more people seem to know and care about the cartwheel issue than who know about the fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a year in custody before being formally charged, to pick out one of many possible examples. That decision has been questioned by at student at a well-regarded American law school. What do you think of his reasoning?
Here's another example that came up recently. The American Bar Association has standards for DNA evidence that include release of the electronic data files to the defense. Yet, they have not been released to the defense, despite the prosecution's having nearly three years in which to do so. I am at a loss for why the logic of releasing them should stop at the border of any one particular country. Maybe you can explain it to me.
The fact that you and treehorn want to discuss issues of marginal importance in favor of significant ones makes me pause long enough to ask why. So tell us why. Make your case for why a noise citation or a cartwheel are more important than a DNA test that can never be repeated or a bra clasp recovered from a room that looks as if a whirlwind went through, to give two more examples.
- Status