Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

For the benefit of those who aren't diehard guilters; I will spell out the connection I see between Raffaele's statement about his nights activities, the recently revealed logs and the goodnight message from Raffaele's father.

Raffaele's claim was that he browsed the internet for a bit, maybe watched a movie, received a goodnight message from his father and went to bed.

The goodnight message was received by Raffaele's phone at 6:02 on the 2nd. The computer logs show activity on Raffaele's computer and specifically the activation of the screen saver for the last time that night at 6:22. Twenty minutes (more or less) is not an unreasonable delay setting for a screensaver (mine just happens to be set to exactly 20 minutes although the display sleep is even shorter) and the screensaver would have activated after that delay after human activity on the computer ceased.

Raffaele was viewing videos on his computer. Around 6am he picks up or moves his phone and the phone connects to the network and receives the SMS. Raffaele reads the newly arrived text which says "goodnight" so he stops playing on the computer and goes to bed. 20 minutes later the screensaver activates and adds a record to the log.

So Raffaele was telling precisely the truth?

Very nice work Dan O. Very nice indeed. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Dan O.]

So Raffaele was telling precisely the truth?

Very nice work Dan O. Very nice indeed. I tip my hat to you.

A skeptic would say: "If the evidence is verified, it would show that Raffaele was telling the truth."

 

[platonov]

Macavity's a jealous Cat

Originally Posted by Dan O.

For the benefit of those who aren't diehard guilters; I will spell out the connection I see between Raffaele's statement about his nights activities, the recently revealed logs and the goodnight message from Raffaele's father.

Raffaele's claim was that he browsed the internet for a bit, maybe watched a movie, received a goodnight message from his father and went to bed.

The goodnight message was received by Raffaele's phone at 6:02 on the 2nd. The computer logs show activity on Raffaele's computer and specifically the activation of the screen saver for the last time that night at 6:22. Twenty minutes (more or less) is not an unreasonable delay setting for a screensaver (mine just happens to be set to exactly 20 minutes although the display sleep is even shorter) and the screensaver would have activated after that delay after human activity on the computer ceased.

Raffaele was viewing videos on his computer. Around 6am he picks up or moves his phone and the phone connects to the network and receives the SMS. Raffaele reads the newly arrived text which says "goodnight" so he stops playing on the computer and goes to bed. 20 minutes later the screensaver activates and adds a record to the log.

So Raffaele was telling precisely the truth?

Very nice work Dan O. Very nice indeed. I tip my hat to you.

Hold on to you hats - Is this another alibi I see before me ?

So RS wasn't asleep from 1ish ? - he was awake all night [till 6 am].
What has happened the earlier arguments that he didn't claim AK went out but that he merely couldn't verify her whereabouts after he fell asleep at 1am.

Leaving aside the phone & computer evidence & other testimony etc a skeptic might say there is such a thing as having too many alibis.

More than 1 is usually a problem.

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not a betting man, but if I was I'd gladly wager that we'll see exactly that argument in the wild within a few weeks at most.

Quoting myself because...

Hold on to you hats - Is this another alibi I see before me ?

So RS wasn't asleep from 1ish ? - he was awake all night [till 6 am].
What has happened the earlier arguments that he didn't claim AK went out but that he merely couldn't verify her whereabouts after he fell asleep at 1am.

Leaving aside the phone & computer evidence & other testimony etc a skeptic might say there is such a thing as having too many alibis.

More than 1 is usually a problem.

.

Yeah, I called it, and it didn't take a week for a guilter to try it. It took just over three and a half hours. I should have applied for the million, clearly I'm psychic... or they're kind of predictable.

 

[platonov]

'Postdiction'

Quoting myself because...

I'm not a betting man, but if I was I'd gladly wager that we'll see exactly that argument in the wild within a few weeks at most.

Yeah, I called it, and it didn't take a week for a guilter to try it. It took just over three and a half hours. I should have applied for the million, clearly I'm psychic... or they're kind of predictable.

Predictable ?

You are 'postdicting' arguments I (and others I'd wager) have made in the past* on this thread.
Most recently over C's evidence but also in 1 of my earliest posts I referenced Macavity.

That wont win the Randi million.

In any case this principle has been a staple of detecting [& poetry] for a long time, for obvious reasons.

ETA I'd make a small wager this 'up all night till 6am' wont appear in the appeal.

ETA2 * Its worse than that even - heres an extract from a post of mine ~ 24 hrs before your 'prediction'

As I tried to impress with the issue of C's evidence and my early mention of Maccavity - Having spare alibis doesn't work in court.

.

 

[Justinian2]

So who is the 'evil leader' in this case - Massei ?? are we are his dupes??

Massei has influenced all of us. In that way, he's been an evil leader especially if you believe that Amanda is innocent.

There are varying degrees of connection to one side or the other here.

What about you? Why are you so passionate?

Evil doesn't always pull the trigger - sometimes it merely pays for the guy that does.

Why would you believe that Massei is NOT evil?

 

[platonov]

...

There are varying degrees of connection to one side or the other here.

What about you? Why are you so passionate?

We are in danger of going OT here but what do you think ?

In answer to your Q regarding my interest, let me just say...

I am unaware of any such activity or operation... nor would I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist !

.

 

[RoseMontague]

For the benefit of those who aren't diehard guilters; I will spell out the connection I see between Raffaele's statement about his nights activities, the recently revealed logs and the goodnight message from Raffaele's father.

Raffaele's claim was that he browsed the internet for a bit, maybe watched a movie, received a goodnight message from his father and went to bed.

The goodnight message was received by Raffaele's phone at 6:02 on the 2nd. The computer logs show activity on Raffaele's computer and specifically the activation of the screen saver for the last time that night at 6:22. Twenty minutes (more or less) is not an unreasonable delay setting for a screensaver (mine just happens to be set to exactly 20 minutes although the display sleep is even shorter) and the screensaver would have activated after that delay after human activity on the computer ceased.

Raffaele was viewing videos on his computer. Around 6am he picks up or moves his phone and the phone connects to the network and receives the SMS. Raffaele reads the newly arrived text which says "goodnight" so he stops playing on the computer and goes to bed. 20 minutes later the screensaver activates and adds a record to the log.

Thanks Dan O.

It is interesting the latest information on the computer activity. I wonder if the laptop was on the bed and perhaps they dozed for awhile, almost any movement will keep most screensavers from activating. It must have been plugged in as well rather than on battery power for that long. Raffaele's appeal also talks about the cell phone (assumed to be turned off by the court).

The judgment, although defining Dr. Pellero’s work as ‘valuable’, did not assess the results of his analysis: in ideal measurement conditions, the field strength measured inside Raffaele’s building is a little higher (5dB) than the minimum reception threshold indicated by the same experts of the scientific police. This minimum margin of reception is much less than the attenuation introduced by frequent arbitrary phenomena, such as holding the telephone in hand, placing it close to metal objects or otherwise shielding it, the movement or position of people, objects (or vehicles) along the path of the radio signal that enters the apartment mainly through just two small windows.
The result is that reception from the Vodafone cell phone network inside Raffaele’s building is poor and this represents an objective cause for the lack of receipt of the SMS sent by his father at 23:14 on 1.11.07 and which arrived only at 06:02:59.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

I cited a textbook on anatomy and physiology to address this point a few days ago. In addition, I just found on page 596 in the book Food Chemistry By Hans-Dieter Belitz, Werner Grosch, Peter Schieberle: "Intestines, with their high content of elastin, make excellent natural sausage casings." Elastin is a protein also found in lung tissue, and its name is indicative of its elastic properties. You can find a discussion of the relationship of elastin and the enzyme elastase to the disease emphysema in Garrett and Grisham's textbook Biochemistry.

Now that you are back and now that we have covered the elasticity of intestines, perhaps you could attend to some of the questions that have been addressed to you.

Do you seriously think that your citation ends the discussion on the ease (or lack thereof) with which alimentary matter can be displaced?!

You're joking, right?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Originally Posted by Fine
Raffaele says explicitly in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. There is no escaping that fact,

Yet the only explanation of it you can think of comes from the assumption of innocence. Does it mean you're now an innocentista?


BTW what was it, did she ask him or persuade him? Or maybe none of the above?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Since I didn't fully disclose the reasoning leading to my conclusion, you are able to conclude there is quite a possibility that a good objective reasoning is behind.

Maybe I'm able, but I'm not willing. I'm a man of little faith, you see
But I have a few alternative conclusions at hand.

 

[treehorn]

Yes, this is getting very tiresome. One does not have to be a qualified doctor to know that the human small intestine is elastic and around 5m in length.

But, for anyone who's interested, Dr Gunther von Hagen (the "Bodyworks" guy) did an excellent series for Channel 4 here in the UK showing real-life autopsies, and explaining as he went along. Here's a link:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=49CBA27DCC8BDE9E

The relevant episodes are Lesson 3: Digestion (1-5). I'm actually blocked from viewing them in the UK (for copyright reasons), but if you live outside the UK you should be able to see them. They are very interesting and informative programmes, but are obviously of a sensitive nature, owing to the fact that a real dead person is being analysed on the autopsy table. IIRC, von Hagen describes the small intestine in some detail, and he also stretches out the whole digestive tract in a straight line to show just how long it is.

While interesting, the limits of this kind of information are, I'm sure you'll agree, not only self-evident but rather severe.

One DOES need to be a medical doctor to know whether or not alimentary matter is easily displaced within the intestine during autopsy.

Knowledge of this kind cannot be deduced from watching videos.

So, again, I repeat: Is Lowe a medical doctor?????????????????????????????

Lowe keeps dodging the question. For many weeks now, in fact.

Owing to Lowe's failure to follow the very rule that he repeatedly invoked above (dismissing/ prohibiting arguments that were not supported by peer-reviewed journals), he must now support his assertions in respect of the ligatures/ stomach contents on the basis of personal knowledge/ training/ education/ experience.

Is Lowe abandoning his insistence on "evidence-based argument"? (His recent reliance on the decidedly ad hominem tactic of name calling ("guilters"?!) certainly militates in favor of the notion that he has.)

I hope this is not the case, because I did find Lowe's efforts interesting 'food for thought' (assuming, of course, Lowe actually holds a M.D.).

 

[treehorn]

We are in danger of going OT here but what do you think ?

In answer to your Q regarding my interest, let me just say...

I am unaware of any such activity or operation... nor would I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist !

.

Oh, man!

THE GREATEST movie of all time.

(You can't be all bad if you're the sort to toss out a line like that.)

 

[treehorn]

So Raffaele was telling precisely the truth?

Very nice work Dan O. Very nice indeed. I tip my hat to you.

I see you're still with us.

Are you going back up your argument re the ligatures issue/ resistance to displacement during autopsy of alimentary matter by citing a peer-reviewed journal?

Or are you going to claim to have a M.D.?

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
Since I didn't fully disclose the reasoning leading to my conclusion, you are able to conclude there is quite a possibility that a good objective reasoning is behind.

Maybe I'm able, but I'm not willing. I'm a man of little faith, you see
But I have a few alternative conclusions at hand.

I think it depends on the question. If it is that he is 99% sure the footprint is a closer match to Raffaele than Rudy I can understand his reasoning even if I don't agree with it. If I were asked the question in that manner (wasn't there a poll here on that-how did it turn out btw¿) I could state my choice in that manner as well (although I would pick Rudy's). If you were to throw Amanda's print in the mix, I can see a case that her's ¬ his could be chosen as well. If they had sample prints from the boys downstairs and Laura and Filomena, who knows, some of those might be a better match and someone could honestly say one of those is the best match and they are 99% sure it is the best match of those available.

Honestly, that print as an identifier for anyone is an exercise in futility, the best that can be stated is that someone's print could be excluded. The court's expert said Rudy's print could be excluded which is; in my opinion, utter nonsense.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

If you have time to post a question that has already been answered, then you have time to answer the questions that have been asked of you. With your concerns about manners and integrity, as well as your disapproval of hypocrisy, I just know that you will strive to answer them with deliberate speed.

It's a lot easier to spot a nasty little ad hominem dig (from another poster - not you, Halides), than it is to wade back through all of these posts in search of your grievances, but I'm trying.

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh, man!

THE GREATEST movie of all time.

(You can't be all bad if you're the sort to toss out a line like that.)

Very violent (compared to some manga), but terrific as you say (we agree). Godfather I is better, imo.

ETA, not all bad, agree can't be excluded from that category.

 

[Withnail1969]

Maybe I'm able, but I'm not willing. I'm a man of little faith, you see
But I have a few alternative conclusions at hand.

I think Machiavelli has forgotten that this is the skeptics' forum not the 'believe my arbitrary figure because I say so forum'. If there is reasoning behind this '99% certain the footprint is Raffaele's', then let's see it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two-way street

Do you seriously think that your citation ends the discussion on the ease (or lack thereof) with which alimentary matter can be displaced?!

You're joking, right?

treehorn,

If you are here in order to have a good faith discussion, then you should start answering the many questions put to you. A dialog is a two-way street, and you have had plenty of time. Until you do so, I do not plan to respond to anything you say.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It is very easy, actually

It's a lot easier to spot a nasty little ad hominem dig (from another poster - not you, Halides), than it is to wade back through all of these posts in search of your grievances, but I'm trying.

treehorn,

Use the advanced search function, put my username in, then choose "treehorn" as the search term. This will turn up all of my comments where your username appears. You should find one that collects the message numbers of my previous comments. That message, IIRC, does not contain links to the messages, but only the message numbers. Thank you for looking into this with such dilligence.