Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[odeed]

Tell me again why I need to comply with calls for evidence from someone that I perceive issn't likely to make a contribution to understanding the truth of what happened in this case?

Statements like this is one of the reasons that this thread is joke on a skeptics forum.

 

[Withnail1969]

__________________

Umm, no smearing found anywhere? John, you may wish to look at the luminol-reacting bare footprint shown in image #33 of the Rinaldi Report, HERE . Looks like a textbook example of smearing to me.

///

It looks like a footprint to me. No sign of smearing, more like some dilution with water of whatever the Luminol-reacting substance is.

 

[LondonJohn]

__________________

Umm, no smearing found anywhere? John, you may wish to look at the luminol-reacting bare footprint shown in image #33 of the Rinaldi Report, HERE . Looks like a textbook example of smearing to me.

///

Oh dear. This is demonstrably clearly a case of camera blurring on a long-exposure luminol photograph. If that footprint had been mopped up, there wouldn't even be an outline of a footprint left. There would simply be long smear marks made in very dilute blood. Any more images in the arsenal?

///
.
.
$$
.
//////
.
£££
.
.

 

[platonov]

Confusion over confusion

No, I'm too stupid to know what polysemy is, of course. But if you're attempting to use the word "appeal" in its other sense (the power of attracting or arousing interest) then what you wrote makes no sense. Unless, of course, you meant to say "its appeal to FOAkers", rather than "FOAker appeal" (which clearly implies the appeal of FOAkers). Shame you couldn't express yourself more accurately.


.

So now as I understand your argument its the placement or use of term FOAker not the word appeal which was causing the confusion.

You appear to be confused over what your confused over - or moving the goalposts.

How are Carlo Dalla Vedova and Giulia Bongiorno FOAker's in either case.

Time to move on I think

.

 

[christianahannah]

__________________

Umm, no smearing found anywhere? John, you may wish to look at the luminol-reacting bare footprint shown in image #33 of the Rinaldi Report, HERE . Looks like a textbook example of smearing to me.

///

I am not sure if this is the same photo of a footprint that Dan O. commented on previously. It was guessed that the footprint was perhaps blurry/smeared because of movement of the camera. I guess it could also be blurry/smeared due to a possible wiping and then stepping onto the surface by the foot.

Was there testimony concerning the blurriness/smearing of the luminol footprint shown?

ETA: I am not sure if this is the same subject that Machiavelli was speaking of concerning the footprints (as Yummi at PMF). The subject of the post was brought over here by me some time ago.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

__________________

Umm, no smearing found anywhere? John, you may wish to look at the luminol-reacting bare footprint shown in image #33 of the Rinaldi Report, HERE . Looks like a textbook example of smearing to me.

Is that what you think a footprint would look like after a pass with a mop?

Which textbooks are you referring to? I imagine that you in fact have no familiarity whatsoever with any textbooks pertaining to the subject of smeared luminol reactions caused by mopped traces and that this was merely an overexited figure of speech, but if you do indeed have a textbook that says that is what it should look like I should very much like to see it.

It looks awfully clear to me for a footprint that has supposedly been mopped over, possibly with bleach. From what I have read that would normally be expected to leave a huge smear of luminol-reacting bleach that bears no resemblance at all to a footprint.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Statements like this is one of the reasons that this thread is joke on a skeptics forum.

Last time I checked being a skeptic didn't make you an unpaid research assistant whose job it was to meticulously research whatever mostly-irrelevant points a random poster wanted to see a second source for, after refusing to believe the first source.

 

[LondonJohn]

So now as I understand your argument its the placement or use of term FOAker not the word appeal which was causing the confusion.

You appear to be confused over what your confused over - or moving the goalposts.

How are Carlo Dalla Vedova and Giulia Bongiorno FOAker's in either case.

Time to move on I think

.

No, I wasn't confused at all. And you "understand" incorrectly. The British tabloid press would call this a classic "reverse ferret" - but I digress

 

[Withnail1969]

Is that what you think a footprint would look like after a pass with a mop?

I would expect to see some random smears probably in the gaps between the tiles or at the edges of the floor had there actually been a cleanup with a mop, not fully formed footprints.

 

[odeed]

Look. If it makes you feel better to go on about all this, then go right ahead. I've already happily agreed that Dempsey's exact version of events is not readily supported by other media accounts, but that the truth is still somewhat vague to say the least. And I've pointed out that what seems to be pretty well supported is that the Perugia police acted in an inappropriate display that day, whether or not all three suspects were actually in the vehicles at the time.

But congratulations on your "victory". It certainly seems disproportionately important to you, for reasons I'm finding hard to figure out.......

15 minutes of searching to find the early news articles would of suggested that the statement, which had been posted several times in the last few months, was false and made up from the stories of Lumumba arrest.

But it took 5 pages and 185+ posts for you to even make a half hearted climb down. What is the point of debating when a claim that can be so easily checked, without the need for science degree, access to documents or a library card, is so rigorously defended without any proof.

Another reason why this thread is a joke on a skeptics forum.

 

[odeed]

Last time I checked being a skeptic didn't make you an unpaid research assistant whose job it was to meticulously research whatever mostly-irrelevant points a random poster wanted to see a second source for, after refusing to believe the first source.

As I have been saying, I never made the claim in the first place, it was not my burden of proof, and it was not up to me to search for articles which did not show it did not happen, why do I have to prove something did not happen?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

15 minutes of searching to find the early news articles would of suggested that the statement, which had been posted several times in the last few months, was false and made up from the stories of Lumumba arrest.

But it took 5 pages and 185+ posts for you to even make a half hearted climb down. What is the point of debating when a claim that can be so easily checked, without the need for science degree, access to documents or a library card, is so rigorously defended without any proof.

Another reason why this thread is a joke on a skeptics forum.

We would all greatly appreciated it if you helped to improve the quality of this thread by stating your theory about how the crime occurred which is consistent with the facts.

You can keep banging on about a mostly-irrelevant point, which was reported by one source but not confirmed in every detail by other sources, and demanding that other people do your research for you, but I don't think that's behaviour which is likely to contribute anything of any use whatsoever to this thread.

 

[TomCH]

A few pages back, someone mentioned that it would have been easier for rudy to use the shower to clean up the blood on his trousers than the Bidet. The problem with using a shower is if the spray is coming down from overhead he would be likely to get drenched from top to bottom. Since he is in a hurry to get away from the crime scene, I doubt that he would be stripping down to take a full shower.

It recently occurred to me that if the shower had a flexible sprayer like this one:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4045[/qimg]

He could rinse blood off the lower pant leg without undressing (only the shoe would need to be removed). And he could step out from the shower directly onto the edge of the bath mat so as not to put his bare foot on the cold tile floor.

It was my suggestion, based on the fact that nearly everyone I know here and in Italy has such showers.

However, I wouldn't have removed my shoes.

 

[pilot padron]

I'll be charitable and chalk this up to the language barrier

Technically I'm manually clicking on the "view post" button to selectively unignore posts of yours which, based on their position in the thread, might be a reply to my earlier challenge. However it's a distinction without a major difference since I am indeed reading your posts currently.

I think it's fair to give you a second chance just for looking like you might have been attempting to respond in good faith. If it turns out this was a misleading impression I can just go back to not viewing your posts.

However it does mean that if you don't come up with an actual response to the challenge to present a coherent narrative of the crime which covers the facts as we now know them, I don't have to click twice to ignore you again.

Regarding your above...errrr... 'argument'

PUH---LEEEZE

Just do it !!!

 

[LondonJohn]

15 minutes of searching to find the early news articles would of suggested that the statement, which had been posted several times in the last few months, was false and made up from the stories of Lumumba arrest.

But it took 5 pages and 185+ posts for you to even make a half hearted climb down. What is the point of debating when a claim that can be so easily checked, without the need for science degree, access to documents or a library card, is so rigorously defended without any proof.

Another reason why this thread is a joke on a skeptics forum.

It's a real shame that you view this case as such an adversarial battle of personal one-upmanship. Your use of phrases such as "climb down" and "rigorously defended" makes that very clear. Do you view this as some sort of personal mission?

I'm interested in whether Knox and Sollecito were correctly convicted. I don't think that they were, but I have absolutely zero personal investment in that position. I have nothing to gain if the convictions get overturned at appeal, and nothing to lose if they don't. I think that a small issue that might have adversely influenced the judicial panel was the police's behaviour on 6th November. What's important to the case (as I see it) is that the police seemed to have acted improperly and unprofessionally on that day, in the way they drove round Perugia with all sirens blaring (with attendant direct quotes about how unusual that was), and in the way that De Felice conducted himself in the press conference.

Who exactly was in the police convoy is - to me - less important than the symbolism of the act itself. Dempsey wrote it one particular way, but I'm perfectly prepared to accept that she may have got it partly wrong. But incidentally, I still don't think anyone here is in a position to say that Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba weren't paraded round town personally. Remind me again how this claim can be so easily checked?

Lastly, it appears to me that some people - yourself included - are jumping hard on details such as these (which are peripheral to the case), but avoiding the far more important and pertinent discussions that are directly relevant. Is that an unfair observation?

 

[Katody Matrass]

A few pages back, someone mentioned that it would have been easier for rudy to use the shower to clean up the blood on his trousers than the Bidet.

Some guilters' argument that Rudy couldn't possibly have made the bathmat print because it requires some unbelievable gymnastics always appeared strange to me. After all someone made that print, while cleaning himself up, it didn't come to existence magically. If it's doable, Guede could have done it very well.

 

[tsig]

It does, doesn't it. Especially if the new tests are granted - and I find it hard to see how the appeal court can refuse to grant these tests.

Since Italian justice is corrupt and has already railroaded Amanda into jail why do you think they would agree to the tests?

 

[Fiona]

Time for this thread to be closed and a new one started surely ?

 

[odeed]

It's a real shame that you view this case as such an adversarial battle of personal one-upmanship. Your use of phrases such as "climb down" and "rigorously defended" makes that very clear. Do you view this as some sort of personal mission?

I'm interested in whether Knox and Sollecito were correctly convicted. I don't think that they were, but I have absolutely zero personal investment in that position. I have nothing to gain if the convictions get overturned at appeal, and nothing to lose if they don't. I think that a small issue that might have adversely influenced the judicial panel was the police's behaviour on 6th November. What's important to the case (as I see it) is that the police seemed to have acted improperly and unprofessionally on that day, in the way they drove round Perugia with all sirens blaring (with attendant direct quotes about how unusual that was), and in the way that De Felice conducted himself in the press conference.

Who exactly was in the police convoy is - to me - less important than the symbolism of the act itself. Dempsey wrote it one particular way, but I'm perfectly prepared to accept that she may have got it partly wrong. But incidentally, I still don't think anyone here is in a position to say that Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba weren't paraded round town personally. Remind me again how this claim can be so easily checked?

Lastly, it appears to me that some people - yourself included - are jumping hard on details such as these (which are peripheral to the case), but avoiding the far more important and pertinent discussions that are directly relevant. Is that an unfair observation?

If you were interested in whether Knox and Sollecito were correctly convicted then you should check the facts before you repeat them.

 

[tsig]

It's a real shame that you view this case as such an adversarial battle of personal one-upmanship. Your use of phrases such as "climb down" and "rigorously defended" makes that very clear. Do you view this as some sort of personal mission?

I'm interested in whether Knox and Sollecito were correctly convicted. I don't think that they were, but I have absolutely zero personal investment in that position. I have nothing to gain if the convictions get overturned at appeal, and nothing to lose if they don't. I think that a small issue that might have adversely influenced the judicial panel was the police's behaviour on 6th November. What's important to the case (as I see it) is that the police seemed to have acted improperly and unprofessionally on that day, in the way they drove round Perugia with all sirens blaring (with attendant direct quotes about how unusual that was), and in the way that De Felice conducted himself in the press conference.

Who exactly was in the police convoy is - to me - less important than the symbolism of the act itself. Dempsey wrote it one particular way, but I'm perfectly prepared to accept that she may have got it partly wrong. But incidentally, I still don't think anyone here is in a position to say that Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba weren't paraded round town personally. Remind me again how this claim can be so easily checked?

Lastly, it appears to me that some people - yourself included - are jumping hard on details such as these (which are peripheral to the case), but avoiding the far more important and pertinent discussions that are directly relevant. Is that an unfair observation?

Then no one here is in a position to say they were paraded around town so using the "paraded around town" factoid to deride the Italian justice system is dishonest.