Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

If Amanda can't be excluded in two prints in terms of probable identity (all measurements fit), the prints are identical.

How many female reference samples did they compare it to? That would be either one or two (if they bothered with Meredith's). It may have been the best match they had.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I agree with you. katy_did and katody are both wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is meaningless until you (or anyone) propose a complete scenario of the crime.

This is not meaningles at all. And why should it be so?
The ascertained part of the scenario must be complete just in a degree enough to show the remaning parts of the scenario are possible.
And a complete enough scenario of the crime already exists, not only in the Massei report.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This is not meaningles at all. And why should it be so?
The ascertained part of the scenario must be complete just in a degree enough to show the remaning parts of the scenario are possible. And a complete enough scenario of the crime already exists, not only in the Massei report.

That's exactly what I mean. I'd love to see even a hypothetical, possible scenario, yet complete

 

[RoseMontague]

This is not meaningles at all. And why should it be so?
The ascertained part of the scenario must be complete just in a degree enough to show the remaning parts of the scenario are possible.
And a complete enough scenario of the crime already exists, not only in the Massei report.

We are not back on this point scoring system again that we have to give unproven evidence weight because of some dead guy's whacked theories are we?

 

[Machiavelli]

How many female reference samples did they compare it to? That would be either one or two (if they bothered with Meredith's). It may have been the best match they had.

If two things are identical they are identical. If three are identical, three are identical. If three prints are identical, there is no "best match".
When two things match, they match. Regardless from the other comparisons.
Amanda's foot print matches the luminol prints, with no possibility of significant error.

 

[christianahannah]

Considering ILE's screw-up of not placing fluorescent reference tapes in the photo there is only one method possible. You have to use visible reference points, which would be floor tile ridges. You then need to measure the tile correctly, perform proper perspective correction and apply the coordinate system you obtained from the reference (what Rinaldi failed to do properly).

In the motivations it says fluorescent reference tapes were used, but were they taken up before the photos were taken? Also, in reference to the blurry photos it was stated that a tripod was used for a stable support for the camera. Do you know what camera was used to cause the blur of the footprints?

Page 345:

The photos were then taken using a tripod, in order to ensure a stable support for the camera.

During the shots, fluorescent measuring tapes were used (normal measuring tapes were used when the photos taken in natural light were shot, it was explained), so that the metric reference could be used for the subsequent measuring of the photographed prints.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's exactly what I mean. I'd love to see even a hypothetical, possible scenario, yet complete

I think you have it.
Actually, I think you have many of them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It may seem hard to believe, but so is murder. Maybe, as discussed, Amanda and Raffaele were getting intimate, they heard Rudy trying to get Meredith to get with him, and decided to join in or pressure her. It seems strange to us, but then so does murdering a woman. Yet it happened.

This is very much a false equivalence. Murder happens, but almost always in ways that are commonplace for murder. Lots more people are killed by jealous spouses, or die after being beaten up in a pub by someone with a history of pub violence, than are killed in a bizarre conspiracy between their psychotherapist, the King of Sweden and a passing shoe salesman to beat them to death with a gold bar in a sweatsock.

So we can't just glibly assert "Murder is weird, therefore every murder story is as likely as any other murder story".

Also, if we want to talk about scenarios that are "possible" yet seem ridiculous, do I really need to point out your theory of Amanda and Raffaele walking through coffee grounds, rusty pipes, or some other yet to be found substance through the hall?

As we have pointed out many times before, there were also multiple luminol reactions in Raffaele's house, so even just within the scope of this case there's proof that things other than pools of blood found in the average household will react with luminol and we may well never find out exactly what the thing was in any individual case.

All the luminol reactions in Amanda's house prove is that some time (not necessarily the night of the murder) someone (not necessarily Amanda or Raffaele) trod in something (not necessarily blood, and in fact probably not on the basis of the negative test). Since we have proof from Raffaele's house that this happens, I see nothing which is the least bit implausible about this theory - especially when the alternative explanation, that the substance is blood, contradicts the forensic test results and makes no sense in light of the lack of bloody bare footprints in the murder room.

Elsewhere you said:

It's been insinuated. If they are prints that are Raffaele's (unless im mistaken and misunderstood), they have to have been in the 6 days before the murder. What a coincidence that he stepped in something within a period of 6 days, that reacted to luminol, right in the hallway next to Meredith's room. Due to those circumstances, I would as a juror want to know what they could have been made of. Although the burden of proof is to prove guilt, that doesn't apply to every single piece of evidence by itself. It applies to the whole picture. If the jurors hear other testimony that makes them side towards guilt, and then they are presented with the footprints, I can understand why they would be more inclined to believe they are blood if those footprints cannot reasonably be something else (I say reasonably, not impossible)

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy back in action: As we saw in Raffaelle's house, ordinary houses can and do have luminol-reacting blotches on the floor. You could spray luminol all over any house and more than likely find some patches that reacted.

You could say "I demand precise, specific and factual explanations for all these reactions! If I don't get them, then I get to assume that they were made in the victim's blood on the night of the murder, even if they tested negative for blood, and even if there are no bloody bare footprints in the murder room!".

However it's a very strange thing to say - it's saying "If it could be anything, and nobody can prove that it is any one specific thing... then I get to assume it is the one very specific thing I want it to be - ta-dah!". It's establishing total uncertainty and then asserting that total uncertainty means certainty in your preferred idea.

Or Rudy swinging like a gymnast from one landing to the window? It may be possible, but with the other ways to get into the cottage, it sounds as ridiculous to me as the assertions we make seem to sound to you.

I think your incredulity is somewhat selective if the idea of a fit young man with links to similar burglaries in the past getting to that window ledge is ridiculous.

If you can't comprehend the similarities, I don't know what to tell you. It would be nice to see a little less hypocrisy in this thread, you can still argue your case without the hypocritical snide statements. The fact that you need to make them, one after the other, makes me wonder....

If you are genuinely unable to tell a good argument from a bad argument, then it's going to look like hypocrisy when someone who can make that distinction says "Your argument is stupid, whereas our argument is rigorous". To you both arguments seem equally compelling so the person saying your argument is stupid seems like an arrogant hypocrite to you.

However in fact something very different is going on. Even if you can't see them yet, there are very major differences in the kind and quality of arguments being put forward by each side.

I fully expect this exact argument to be picked up and mindlessly echoed by guilters now I have made it, of course: I see that some of them are still fumbling around with the term "anti-scientific" the way a monkey might fumble around with a gun, and there's no evidence I can see that they recognise the irony in doing so.

 

[Katody Matrass]

In the motivations it says fluorescent reference tapes were used, but were they taken up before the photos were taken? Also, in reference to the blurry photos it was stated that a tripod was used for a stable support for the camera. Do you know what camera was used to cause the blur of the footprints?

Page 345:

I guess when Massei writes "used" he means "from time to time" like with the gloves that were "changed". Maybe the shaken photo was taken from a tripod, but it was a shaken tripod. The measurement Rinaldi screwed-up was definitely without any fluorescent tapes. Check out the photos and say if you see any.

 

[RoseMontague]

If two things are identical they are identical. If three are identical, three are identical. If three prints are identical, there is no "best match".
When two things match, they match. Regardless from the other comparisons.
Amanda's foot print matches the luminol prints, with no possibility of significant error.

There is no was to positively match this to Amanda as an identical print:

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think you have it.
Actually, I think you have many of them.

I haven't seen any, not in this thread, not in Massei.

But if you have one on mind, can you elaborate on it a bit?

For example what was the purpose of Amanda and Raffaele leaving his flat, what time was it, what happened next, when did they meet Guede, why have they invited him (or if)? What was Meredith doing in the meantime etc?

 

[Kaosium]

I find it less ironic that you appear to have misinterpreted the initial point of my post which dealt with Katody Matrass's 'understanding of the Daly Mail demographics'.

You may view all media outlets thru the prism of how they* report the MK case (Is this what the 'strategists' call a hot button issue ??)
But rest assured I wouldn't use such a narrow spectrum - such a 'black & white' analysis I find simplistic & naive.

* Itself a misunderstanding - more accurately a journo or columnist in their employ, even the rags are not necessarily homogenous or consistent in their reportage on many issues.

I understand the demographics and the editorial slants of those UK newspapers, I use to read those fairly regularly along with the Daily Express up until about five years ago for overseas news. Maybe they've changed somewhat, but I doubt it. I also know The Mail at least has mellowed somewhat since it was the favorite of a fellow called Mosley way back in the day. I'm betting in a later era it was pleased with that "rivers of blood" speech, and that's the sort of thing you're getting at. I find the irony sublime, but I've been told I have a twisted sense of humor.

I suspect you've got a hammer, and you're looking to nail what you can see with this big 'X' without realizing that it might mislead you in this issue. That's not what's motivating people here, it's a byproduct of confronting a risible injustice from a bizarre situation. That narrow focus caused you to misjudge someone for a Mail reader, when if you look back a week or so ago you'll find his post about superheroes and colonialism or whatever it was that strongly suggests he's not.

If you think about it, someone who is actually a 'FOAKer' (I'm not) is probably from around Seattle, which is kind of a glittering jewel of the 'Left Coast' over here--it's not a hotbed of xenophobia to put it mildly. What you should wonder about is 'what would cause people normally not like that to sometimes breath fire like they were regular Mail readers.' Just once, for the intellectual exercise if nothing else, perhaps you might stop accepting every ridiculous excuse for a brutally botched investigation complete with CYA and stonewalling to this day, and stop to think what it might mean if you subjected the police in this matter to the same scrutiny you would if this had happened in Texas. If you put the work into looking then perhaps you will get a peek behind the curtain.

Or you could just stay 'in the flesh' and keep 'waiting for the worms.'

As for 'a primary tenet of guilterism' ; What can I say - Is it the new 'yellow peril' or 'red menace'
.

I was hoping you'd like that, now you have something to go with 'hottie' and 'Dreyfus'--collect them all and impress your friends!

 

[Machiavelli]

We are not back on this point scoring system again that we have to give unproven evidence weight because of some dead guy's whacked theories are we?

It's very simple. And theories are not dead nor whacked, they are obvious (while Kevin's statistical calculations are egregiously wrong). It's so simple: nobody is able to propose a reasonable alternative for how the prints wre produced. The defence wants to produce a reasonable doubt. They need a reasonable alternative to make a doubt, and they don't have it. They don't have a reasonable alternative nor clue for any of the basics (substance, circumstance, time, etc.). We have only the assertion by Charlie Wilkes that they are a "random artifact". But they are not a random artifact. They are not something obtainable randomly.

 

[Machiavelli]

I haven't seen any, not in this thread, not in Massei.

But if you have one on mind, can you elaborate on it a bit?

For example what was the purpose of Amanda and Raffaele leaving his flat, what time was it, what happened next, when did they meet Guede, why have they invited him (or if)? What was Meredith doing in the meantime etc?

I have never considered these questions as important, because multiple answers are possible on some of these, and equally acceptable. Amanda is out at a certain time or at the cottage and Raffaele is in his apartment? It is possible, it is acceptable. Why did they invited him? He met or had a date with Amanda and decided it was okay for them to have sex. Maybe they simply already had sex before. I really don't see the problem: these parts of the story certainly are not the problem.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
Yet, Halides, all this video shows is two police vehicles, turning out of Questura (Via Cortonese) towards the highway access which will take them to Capanne Prison. I see no winding streets of old Perugia here. We're not even sure who is in the police vehicles. Your favourite convict, Amanda, certainly isn't visible through the vehicle movement and glare and reflection on the windows (if she's there).

I haven't derailed the discussion. I have simply tried to debunk yet another false accusation coming from the FOAKer side of this discussion.
<snip>

Hello Halides1, .... The 2nd thing I learned is that it was true. After being arrested, and with the cameras rollin', Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were indeed driven thru town with lights ablaze and sirens blazin'.
Now which author was it that wrote of this?
Candace Dempsey?

Wrong. Read above.
<snip>

Hi Kermit,
A couple of things are seemingly incorrect with this posting of yours, and in the spirit of debate, I wish to point them out to you...
1st, there are actually not 2 BUT 3 cars leaving in the video Halides1 linked.
Have a look again:

http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/students-flatmate-breaks-down/2AbPjncL9jyNVXIS8bWedg

Now, I do not have my copy of "Murder in Italy" with me at the moment, so I can not say what it is that Candace Dempsey exactly wrote about in this incident.
However, you wrote that I am wrong about something I wrote.
I beg to differ, sir, so please re-read what I wrote:
"The 2nd thing I learned is that it was true. After being arrested, and with the cameras rollin', Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were indeed driven thru town with lights ablaze and sirens blazin'".

Where am I wrong in my comprehension of what I had watched?
That we did not get to see the clip, -(most likely edited out due to time constraint of the television program), of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito handcuffed and getting into the car?
That you can not clearly see Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito?
I believe that Patrick Lumumba is in the 1st car, Amanda Knox is in the 2nd and Raffaele Sollecito is in the 3rd...

Being a guy who has a passion for photography Kermit,
I have to ask you this question:
Don't you believe that that is Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox being driven, after they were arrested, thru town with the lights ablaze and sirens blazin'?

Or was it just STOCK FOOTAGE?
Hmmm...
Randy
LAsurfpix.com

PS-Kermit,
It might seem anal to point out to you that there were 3 cars driven with lights ablaze and sirens blarin', but you know what?
As we discuss the fine points of this murder case, it did reminded me of another couple of folks involved in the investigation of this brutal, bloody murder.

You might have heard of them:
The investigator who could not even correctly count the rings on Raffaele's Nike Airforce-1 sneakers
and that gal who said that Amanda 1st called her Mom at 12:00pm, not 12:47pm...

Have a good one,
RWVBWL

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no was to positively match this to Amanda as an identical print:

(..)

You don't like the word "identical" for things that have an error, ok if you don't like it. To me the word has an obvious logical meaning. It means you cannot find a print that is more coincident than Amanda's print. And it means you won't easilly find another print with an array of data that is also coincident. You may find it, but most prints won't fit.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I have never considered these questions as important, because multiple answers are possible on some of these, and equally acceptable. Amanda is out at a certain time or at the cottage and Raffaele is in his apartment? It is possible, it is acceptable. Why did they invited him? He met or had a date with Amanda and decided it was okay for them to have sex. Maybe they simply already had sex before. I really don't see the problem: these parts of the story certainly are not the problem.

The problem is, you need to provide a combination of such answers, that would be possible when taken together and would fit the known facts. Apparently it's not that easy because neither Massei nor any guilter achieved this feat to that day.

Let's start with Toto, he sees AK and RS at 21:28. Why have they left the flat, and why (or aren't they?) are they carrying a 30cm kitchen knife? Where is Guede? What is Meredith doing? Why isn't she calling her mother?

 

[Katody Matrass]

It means you cannot find a print that is more coincident than Amanda's print.

Every print would be coincident with that blob.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you have it.
Actually, I think you have many of them.

You keep asserting this, but no such theory is ever articulated.

The best that has been seen, and it is a truly feeble best, is to point to the Massei report and pretend that it fits the facts as we now know them, which it plainly doesn't.

Yet this feeble attempt at pointing to a narrative is the best any of the pro-guilt side can some up with.

It seems like everyone on the pro-guilt side is shuffling their feet and waiting for someone else to put forward a theory than they can then champion, but nobody has any idea what that theory might be.