Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

Misinformation is simply that which is not true. It is not the same thing as disinformation, which is that which is untrue and known by the speaker as such. Many of the comments I previously listed gave specific examples of erroneous information, such as a claim that Amanda had sex with at least three strangers (12160) and the claim that Amanda had sex with Daniel while dating Raffaele. In addition. I also commented (12369) on what manga was, to counter your description in 12353.

Now I just spent a lot of time hunting down these posts at your request and I'm not sure what your grievance is, exactly.

My source for the information in question is Nadeau of Newsweek and her book on the case.

As I'm sure you know, she's bilingual and attended the trial, in person, from start to finish.

Other that Andrea Vogt, which English-speaking, professional journalist is in a better position to know the facts?

On what ground do you claim Nadeau is mistaken as to her assertion that knox slept with someone named daniel in the midst of her 6 days with raffaele?

At a minimum, you have 3 Italian men in 6 weeks (train, danielle, raffale) - knox's longest "relationship" during that time was with sollecito (just 6 days), and she had sex with him the same day she met him (as was the case with the middle aged stranger on the train).

These men were, in point of fact, known to knox for a matter of hours (possibly less) before she had sex with them - "strangers" by any reasonable definition of the term. Ergo knox's behavior (which included unprotected sex with some of these men) is, by any objective measure, not only promiscuous and reckless but entirely consistent with the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD.

It looks to me as though you've decided to characterize the work of a Newsweek reporter as "misinformation" without providing any reasonable justification for having done so.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

Agreed. I just can't believe it would be "good objective reasoning". Not unless I see it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Now I just spent a lot of time hunting down these posts at your request and I'm not sure what your grievance is, exactly.

My source for the information in question is Nadeau of Newsweek and her book on the case.

As I'm sure you know, she's bilingual and attended the trial, in person, from start to finish.

Other that Andrea Vogt, which English-speaking, professional journalist is in a better position to know the facts?

On what ground do you claim Nadeau is mistaken as to her assertion that knox slept with someone named daniel in the midst of her 6 days with raffaele?

At a minimum, you have 3 Italian men in 6 weeks (train, danielle, raffale) - knox's longest "relationship" during that time was with sollecito (just 6 days), and she had sex with him the same day she met him (as was the case with the middle aged stranger on the train).

These men were, in point of fact, known to knox for a matter of hours (possibly less) before she had sex with them - "strangers" by any reasonable definition of the term. Ergo knox's behavior (which included unprotected sex with some of these men) is, by any objective measure, not only promiscuous and reckless but entirely consistent with the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD.

It looks to me as though you've decided to characterize the work of a Newsweek reporter as "misinformation" without providing any reasonable justification for having done so.

treehorn,

Knox did not have sex with a stranger on a train, he is not included on her "AIDS list", not included in her MySpace account of the trip, and I have provided links on this previously showing the origin of this and the denial of it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clarification

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




________________

Charlie, under the circumstances that the Diary was written, you've made a distinction without any difference.

Raffaele ---at one point in time, after his interrogation and arrest---told the cops (and the Judge) that Amanda had asked him to lie. We can both agree on that. If Raffaele had wished to contradict that statement to the cops (and the Judge)---by calling it false---surely he would have done so in his Diary. He doesn't. He can't. Here's why. Suppose he had contradicted the statement. No longer, then, could he use Amanda's persuasion to explain his earlier dishonesty, dishonesty expressed under police interrogation when he had said---contrary to fact--- that Amanda left him to go to Le Chic. Raffaele said to the cops (and the Judge)---after his interrogation--- that it was Amanda who had persuaded him to say this "crap." Without Amanda to blame there is no longer any explanation in his Diary for his dishonesty. And at the time he is writing his Diary, his beliefs are understood to conform to statements he has made to the Judge. So I think it is understood that when he says to the cops (and Judge) that Amanda is to blame we are to accept that as a statement of purported fact. Amanda is to blame.

And I believe that Machiavelli mentioned that Raffaele's position stated before the Judge has never been retracted or amended. So---at least in principle---Raffaele is still saying that Amanda persuaded him to lie.

///

fine,

To which judge are you referring? Matteni, perhaps? Thanks in advance for the clarification.

 

[treehorn]

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.

Hey, I wish I had "plenty" of free time - I'm killing myself trying to make partner, I've been in 4 cities (in 2 different countries) in the last 2 months, and my spouse is already starting to get mad at me when I read this forum (I haven't even made it to 200 posts yet).

Surely I can't be the only one with a family and a career to tend to!

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Daniel was not in Perugia after his one night stand with Amanda. What Ms. Nadeau wrote is in conflict with his witness statement. Has your evaluation of Amanda's character now changed because of new information you have received about her intimate partners?

What is your source for this "witness statement"?

Are you referring to and affidavit or testimony in court?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

A number of posts were addressed to you in your absence, and they rebutted some of your claims. Perhaps you would like to respond to those.

Where?

By whom?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

There are some findings about the footpint that built my reasoning and some other photo-elaboration. For example Katody bases his opinion on several points , among which the idea that the mark at the right of the toe is non-continuous with the big stain and that it is produced by the second toe in a dinamic scenario.
But there is a perfect coincidence between the outline of the mark and the shape of the bathmat decoration. This coincidence is too strong to ba casual. A dinamic scenario of Guede's foot producing this coincidence by chance would be intrinsically unlikely.
But the foot also displays an array of incompatibilities with Rudy Guede's foot, which are visibly absent in the comparison with Sollecito's foot, and those cannot be skimmed over as if evidence against Rudy or in his favour were less important and you can just attribute him anything without any backing at all. The attribution to Rudy is not completely "free" in the reasoning, it must be bolstered with some element. If the footprint looks different from Rudy's that's a problem in itself, this finding cannot be replaced with a personal feeling neither.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Why don't you have a go at refuting his arguments?

post script
George Washington ranked 20th in one list of the top law schools. Moreover, your argument about Italian Civil Law misses one of the main points of his article, which is concerned with international law. I suggest that you try to focus on the argument, not on slaying the messenger, next time.

1) It's not considered to be a great school - not by ANY stretch. That's a fact. Sorry.

2) No self-respecting lawyer seeking to learn something of any value would bother to read an UNPUBLISHED paper authored by a STUDENT, much less an unpublished paper authored by a student at a COMMON LAW school in his attempt to critique the CIVIL LAW system (in respect of which, he has NO formal training).

3) As a rule, pros have little or nothing to learn from amateurs.

4) If I'm going to bother to read papers on comparative criminal law as it pertains to the Italian civil law tradition, I'm going to be looking to people like Dr. Stefano Maffei, not students at 2nd rate schools in common law jurisdictions.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

This morning I wrote two comments directed to you. One is from a textbook on anatomy and physiology that discusses the small intestine, and the other collects unanswered questions and comments from me to you. I would appreciate a response.

I'm going blind looking these posts up.

Can you be more specific?

A link perhaps?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.?

I'm of a similar view to Halides1. I might in theory respond to things you post if at some future time evidence leads me to believe you are participating in this discussion in something resembling good faith. I'll let you know if and when that happens.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

The lack of release of the electronic data files has been discussed many times here and elsewhere. A partial summary was done about three months ago. You could start with answering the question of whether or not it is reasonable for the defense to be able to request these files as a matter of principle.

I have no way of knowing whether any request was made or denied.

Nor do I have any formal training in the Discovery Rules of the Italian legal system.

That said, I am doubtful - in the extreme - that the Court would have allowed the prosecution to run afoul of those Rules and, to the extent that those Rules do not specifically address the "data files" in question, I'm certain the appellate courts will be forced to address the issue in the event such files are, in fact, both material and probative.

BTW, I wonder whether you, as a matter of principle, think it is "reasonable" for the defense to effectively waive their right to supervise the DNA testing in question only to 'cry foul' about said testing during the actual trial...

... plenty of evidence of Ms. Knox’s good character has emerged, and I have never seen you acknowledge it.

I have no doubt that knox had, for the most part, been a model citizen leading up to 2007.

But that's not the point.

The point is that there is evidence supporting the notion that her 'good character' began to degrade in 2007, at about the age antisocial PD typically begins to rear its ugly head in those so afflicted.

Hence the brush with Seattle police, the sudden promiscuity in Italy, the abuse of illicit narcotics and alcohol in both countries, the racist/ exceedingly insensitive taunting of a Jewish coworker, problems with Meredith, the prank/hazing/murder, the behavior at the police HQ and in the Courtroom, etc., all in 2007. Age 19-20. Early adulthood. Bang.

And don't forget: Sociopaths are manipulative. They are, as I've pointed out, often described by medical professionals as "superficially charming."

This might account for any number of the 'positive' stories about knox.

How do YOU account for the fact that so many of her 'negative' behaviors in the year 2007, at age 19/20, comport with the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD?

Do you write it all off to "immaturity" or "eccentricity"? Why?

 

[treehorn]

I'm of a similar view to Halides1. I might in theory respond to things you post if at some future time evidence leads me to believe you are participating in this discussion in something resembling good faith. I'll let you know if and when that happens.

I look forward to it.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Knox did not have sex with a stranger on a train, he is not included on her "AIDS list", not included in her MySpace account of the trip, and I have provided links on this previously showing the origin of this and the denial of it.

Have you not seen the references from friends and family to the incident on her social networking site? (Along the lines of, "That's gross Amanda, even for you.")

Have you not read her sister's reaction to the story? (FYI: She didn't deny it.)

 

[Danceme]

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.
<snip>

Yes, I had anticipated this answer. You are saying the computer logs prove he was up all night on his laptop and the retrieval of the phone text coinciding with the last screensaver log, more or less, solidifies it.

This does beg the question of why this was never part of his alibi before. There's a huge difference in surfing, watching a movie, then sleeping from 1am to up all night on the computer.

However, I am very interested in how the defence will play this in court. It might work.

Quoting myself because...



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.

Kevin stop patting yourself on the back, your quote was;

So is the new argument for his guilt going to be "Well yes he was on the computer all night, and was definitely nowhere near the scene when Meredith was murdered, but he still lied about something! If he's not a murderer why did he lie? I say we lock him up for 23 years on that basis"?

I don't see where platanov suggested Raffaele be locked up anyway because he lied. He commented on the contradictions between this and earlier alibi statements claiming he slept, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I think there's more than one person who would like to get to the bottom of all this.

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).

Now that is a pretty good explanation, although with two people in a bed a laptop could get knocked to the floor. I know it does most times I've done that.

*or perhaps he had a waterbed! remember those

 

[Danceme]

Quote:
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.

I'm assuming this is backed up by numerous logs of past evenings demonstrating this very thing or it simply will not fly.

 

[Withnail1969]

I'm assuming this is backed up by numerous logs of past evenings demonstrating this very thing or it simply will not fly.

I was going to ask the same thing. Do the Vodafone records bear this out?

 

[Danceme]

Have you not seen the references from friends and family to the incident on her social networking site? (Along the lines of, "That's gross Amanda, even for you.")

Have you not read her sister's reaction to the story? (FYI: She didn't deny it.)

Do you have any links to these references? Where did you see them?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

trying reading the paper and responding to the arguments

1) It's not considered to be a great school - not by ANY stretch. That's a fact. Sorry.

2) No self-respecting lawyer seeking to learn something of any value would bother to read an UNPUBLISHED paper authored by a STUDENT, much less an unpublished paper authored by a student at a COMMON LAW school in his attempt to critique the CIVIL LAW system (in respect of which, he has NO formal training).

3) As a rule, pros have little or nothing to learn from amateurs.

4) If I'm going to bother to read papers on comparative criminal law as it pertains to the Italian civil law tradition, I'm going to be looking to people like Dr. Stefano Maffei, not students at 2nd rate schools in common law jurisdictions.

treehorn,

I am not convinced by your answer you are making a serious effort here. In the first place another commenter here showed that Georgetown ranked sixth in international law. So your fact turns out to be dubious, at best. Moreover, Mr. Sayagh's article deals with international legal issues, so your comments about civil versus common law are irrelevant. Why don't you read the paper and respond to the arguments offered on their merits? That is what I previously suggested.

 

[Dan O.]

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).

I'm pretty sure the laptop in question has a trackpad so it won't be affected by movement unless they were on top of it. The fact that the screen saver was kicking in for up to 6 minutes through the night indicates that he wasn't exactly staying awake but was periodically dozing off then waking up the computer and starting the next segment of the movie.

There was mention of creating a playlist the next morning. Can we find out what was on this playlist? If he had been playing videos that had been downloaded then there should have been a last access date for each of those files. But if he put those files into a playlist and later played the list, it would have overwritten the access times. If my suspicion is correct, the playtimes of the segments will interleave with the sleep times seen in the log files.