Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

First of all, he assumed that they were independent events selected at random from all possible events. But in reality, the events are not independent and the selection was through a process of cherry picking events that the prosecution could use to form a theory of guilt.

I know

I'm very interested to see his mathematical calculations laid out explicitly though, since he's told us all what the "correct" answer is....

 

[RoseMontague]

Ok, then why should I accept one native speaker over the other? What's the criteria? Candance Dempsey also agrees with me and she thinks Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Tell you what, I'll send her an email on this one and see if she wants to revise her opinion, in the meantime, I believe it is more than fair to say that the translated part "there is a lot of blood", is disputed.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov
Your boggling my mind - not in a good way.
How can I have it wrong when I asked a question.

It seems that my original point was correct - i.e. its a very weak point in the appeal. But I'll need a couple of weeks to carefully analyze a single line from the Mail to be sure.
Unless you want to link to or quote the relevant part of the appeal doc in English.

platonov,

As a matter of courtesy to our host, I try not to post long quotes. Instead, I give a short quote and a citation in the hopes that an interested party will read the whole essay, whether a newspaper article or a gift statement.

Ok you dont - we can move on.

ETA
Your selective quotation from the 'gift' has been dealt with.There was no need to revisit it - but it had been noted.

However now that you bring it up again I see that on that occasion you didn't link to the complete doc but to a FOAK page with selective & partial ( ~5% ) extracts from the 'gift'.

Really halides1 you need to stop highlighting your own 'errors' like this.

See how others deal with the their 'mistakes' [the p= 0.213 issue, retrocausality, Hutzlike statements , whatever - the list is endless] ....... simply ignore them & move on.
Every new day is a blank slate in Foaker world.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your dog won't hunt, either

Ok you dont - we can move on.

ETA
Your selective quotation from the 'gift' has been dealt with.There was no need to revisit it - but it had been noted.

However now that you bring it up again I see that on that occasion you didn't link to the complete doc but to a FOAK page with selective & partial ( ~5% ) extracts from the 'gift'.

Really halides1 you need to stop highlighting your own 'errors' like this.

See how others deal with the their 'mistakes' [the p= 0.213 issue, retrocausality, Hutzlike statements , whatever - the list is endless] ....... simply ignore them & move on.
Every new day is a blank slate in Foaker world.

.

Platonov,

On 18 November in message 16051 (page 402), I linked to the PMF page with the full text of the gift. I found my previous message with the advanced search function here at JREF. I suggest that you and treehorn use it as well. Now what were your qualifications to discuss Hampikian and Garofano? I have been waiting for some time.

 

[TomCH]

I am surprised you did not see the later correction on this by the PMF translators after listening to the tapes of the call. Both thoughtful and Chandler agreed that the correct translation was bloodstain and spots of blood and the incorrect one a lot of blood. The discussion on this can be found on 4/25/10 main discussion, 10PM, PMF.

Indeed, I was one of those that listened and pointed out it said 'spots' (macchie).

Others thought he said 'un mucchio', which really makes no sense, as it means a 'pile', and I've never seen blood in a pile!

Tom

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tagliabracci's testimony

Was this conclusive or was this Tagliabracci's interpretation/hypothesis?

I remember vaguely that Stefanoni testified to an allele/s that was not compatible but I am not sure what piece of evidence she was referring to or if I am confused and thinking of something else.

Christianahannah,

At the very least, it is Dr. Tagliabracci's interpretation, but I would not like to say more at this time. Some time ago I quoted a bit from the Massei report on this subject here at JREF. I will try to return to this subject again, but doing it full justice will take some time.

 

[TomCH]

I've also read that Raffaele's Italian is very difficult to understand. Why should I doubt the transcript done by a native speaker?

Sorry, but that is only true for those who only have learned it at school.

(or perhaps because I've worked with someone from Bari for the past 20 years on a daily basis, and I'm just used to it, though we mainly spoke French for the first 15 years)

In any case, it IS spots, even Clander wasn't sure at first, but after I and a couple others listened, he re-listened and agreed. And I am no FOAKer.

 

[platonov]

Every dog has his day - yours was 2 'pages' late.

Platonov,

On 18 November in message 16051 (page 402), I linked to the PMF page with the full text of the gift. I found my previous message with the advanced search function here at JREF. I suggest that you and treehorn use it as well. Now what were your qualifications to discuss Hampikian and Garofano? I have been waiting for some time.

Oh you mean after I called you on the selective quotation [both posts were on P400] and posted a quote your original link didn't have, which highlighted your 'omission'.

So 2 pages later, after you were found out, you then posted the PMF link with another selective quotation.

2 pages late and a lot of credibility short.

That's my qualification for querying your version of Garofano - which is, as I have already shown, irrelevant to what was presented in the actual trial.

ETA It appears your advice on the search function wasnt necessary

PS If you want to argue DNA analysis in general there are other sections of this forum which may satisfy you but be advised, they play rough over there when it comes to shoddy sources etc.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your dog has no credibility

Oh you mean after I called you on the selective quotation [both posts were on P400] and posted a quote your original link didn't have, which highlighted your 'omission'.

So 2 pages later, after you were found out, you then posted the PMF link with another selective quotation.

2 pages late and a lot of credibility short.

That's my qualification for querying your version of Garofano - which is, as I have already shown, irrelevant to what was presented in the actual trial.

ETA It appears your advice on the search function wasnt necessary

PS If you want to argue DNA analysis in general there are other sections of this forum which may satisfy you but be advised, they play rough over there when it comes to shoddy sources etc.

.

Platonov,

With reference to the trial, you have shown it to your own satisfaction but not to anyone else’s. Your interpretation is at odds with both Massei’s words (as pointed out by Rose Montague) and Mignini’s statement found at TJfM: “The male reporter asks Prosecutor Mignini what was the most damning evidence in this case? Mignini replies: the knife, the bra clasp, and the mixed blood traces in the bathroom.”
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C228/

Your argument about credibility is silly. People gain credibility with me on this forum by becoming their own reporters, citing relevant news articles, or citing textbooks and primary literature, among other ways. I am happy to judge you and to be judged by others according to this standard. When was the last time you cited a peer-reviewed journal or textbook here?

By only mentioning one of my messages and not another, your message (17190) implied that I had not cited the full text of the gift statement when in fact I had. That was slipshod at best. Moreover, you avoided discussing the contents of the gift statement. Several sentences in different places of this statement support the position that I and other commenters took: Amanda sounded thoroughly confused.

My previous response (17191) refrained from saying, “Playing Gotcha is a waste of time, but if you are going to play this silly game, at least get your facts straight.” I had hoped you would acknowledge your error with a minimum of fuss, but I was too optimistic. Finally, I am still waiting for you to explain what qualifies you to discuss the subject of forensic DNA profiling.

 

[platonov]

He has a good nose ..............

Platonov,

With reference to the trial, you have shown it to your own satisfaction but not to anyone else’s. Your interpretation is at odds with both Massei’s words (as pointed out by Rose Montague) and Mignini’s statement found at TJfM: “The male reporter asks Prosecutor Mignini what was the most damning evidence in this case? Mignini replies: the knife, the bra clasp, and the mixed blood traces in the bathroom.”
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C228/

Your argument about credibility is silly. People gain credibility with me on this forum by becoming their own reporters, citing relevant news articles, or citing textbooks and primary literature, among other ways. I am happy to judge you and to be judged by others according to this standard. When was the last time you cited a peer-reviewed journal or textbook here?

By only mentioning one of my messages and not another, your message (17190) implied that I had not cited the full text of the gift statement when in fact I had. That was slipshod at best. Moreover, you avoided discussing the contents of the gift statement. Several sentences in different places of this statement support the position that I and other commenters took: Amanda sounded thoroughly confused.

My previous response (17191) refrained from saying, “Playing Gotcha is a waste of time, but if you are going to play this silly game, at least get your facts straight.” I had hoped you would acknowledge your error with a minimum of fuss, but I was too optimistic. Finally, I am still waiting for you to explain what qualifies you to discuss the subject of forensic DNA profiling.

Nonsense , its your credibility that's under discussion not mine.

My previous post shows quite clearly where we both stand.

As to the 'gift' and the relevance of Garofano - we have dealt with these and moved on [for the moment] - you lost both arguments.

As to what 'qualifies you to discuss the subject of forensic DNA profiling' I never made any claims either way. My first response on this particular issue [your, or CW's, manufactured argument between Garofano and Hampikian on the basis of 5 lines* from DD] was ...........wait for it............ I have absolutely no idea.

However I do claim the right (indeed the necessity) to view any and all of your claims on this or any other issue with extreme skepticism and deal with them accordingly.

Indeed your claimed or implied qualifications on this issue are not apparent to me as it happens.

* Even then you began with a partial quotation IIRC

.

 

[samba]

Do you have any evidence that any of this led to the convictions?

The following are the reasons why I think they are guilty.

So of your 10 reasons, all but #9 are just "she said this and he said that". What puts Amanda at the scene? Oh that's right....she was in another room. But Garofano (the leading forensic specialist in all of Italy) says that the attackers were in front of MK with blood being strewn upon them. And then Fine says that Amanda might have been punched in the nose by MK.

Do you now know why Chris C says that there is no coherent theory as to how AK & RS committed this crime? Saying...."well they were involved somehow"...doesn't cut it. A theory that is backed up by the forensics is sorely missing in this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

selective highlighting

Nonsense , its your credibility that's under discussion not mine.

My previous post shows quite clearly where we both stand.

As to the 'gift' and the relevance of Garofano - we have dealt with these and moved on [for the moment] - you lost both arguments.

As to what 'qualifies you to discuss the subject of forensic DNA profiling' I never made any claims either way. My first response on this particular issue [your, or CW's, manufactured argument between Garofano and Hampikian on the basis of 5 lines* from DD] was ...........wait for it............ I have absolutely no idea.

However I do claim the right (indeed the necessity) to view any and all of your claims on this or any other issue with extreme skepticism and deal with them accordingly.

Indeed your claimed or implied qualifications on this issue are not apparent to me as it happens.

* Even then you began with a partial quotation IIRC

.

platonov,

A commenter would lose credibility with me if he or she quoted a passage from a source that misled the reader into thinking that the whole essay or article said something other than its true intent. He or she would also lose credibility by bolding or highlighting a passage and ignoring what came just before or after. You wrote today, “Oh you mean after I called you on the selective quotation…” Let’s look to see who is being selective.

In message 15975 you highlighted one clause and not the next clause in the same sentence, which utterly neutralized the previous one. With respect to the gift statement, the more passages that were quoted (my message 16051), the more Amanda’s confusion became apparent. She makes it clear that she doubts her own memory. To sum up, the first passage I quoted is supported by the document, taken as a whole. I am still hoping that you will concede that you were wrong.

You were evasive with respect to the argument in the appeal about the knife. Massei’s reasoning was again claimed to be wanting, yet you have not attempted a counterargument. Instead, you claimed that my reasoning would preclude a person’s being convicted whenever a murder weapon could not be recovered (17064). This is false. My position is that the judgment must be made on the evidence presented in court. If no evidence was presented to support that one of Raffaele’s knives was involved, then the case has to be decided without referring to it (or to any other nonexistent evidence). You never addressed this point. Instead (message 17038), you selectively highlighted Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony and not the court’s reaching beyond the evidence.

You spoke out of both sides of your mouth with respect to Hampikian and Garofano. On the one hand, you said that you had no idea, but on the other, you implied that the matter was too complex to discuss in a lengthy paragraph from Darkness Descending. How would you know this, unless you claim knowledge of the subject?

As for Garofano’s relevance, he is the coauthor of a book on the case, and he was quoted in a British newspaper just as the appeal was beginning. Moreover, the passages you quoted from Massei imply his view of this evidence is the same as Garofano’s and Mignini’s I don’t know how it is possible to be more wrong than you were in this instance.

Your credibility suffers when you selectively highlight some passage and ignore others that contradict it, when you put words in other people’s mouths, and when you fail to address the substance of another commenter’s point. It is your own words and the lack of citations which lead me to conclude that your contributions here are not constructive and your credibility is nil. Now it is time to move on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a return to the parade

The question of whether the police took the three suspects on a parade through the old town of Perugia arose a few days ago. Several posters expressed doubt over the veracity of the account in Candace Dempsey’s book, Murder in Italy. I have provided some of statements made by posters here with the comment number and page number in parenthesis. Kermit also commented, but I left his out, as well as some of odeed’s in the interest of brevity.

Machiavelli (16195 p. 405) wrote,
“So now you can take note about one proven point in Candace Dempsey's narrative: she reports a false fact, unsupported and not found in any source. It is evident her only source of inspiration for this piece of description was Frank Sfarzo's blog, who, commenting number of police cars and frenzy police activity, compared the arrest of Amanda Knox with the arrest of Giovanni Brusca (an obviously subjective association in Frank's style). The "parade" on a circuitous track is nothing more than an "integration" of the half info/comment by Frank, by the typical Candace style of reporting.

It is nothing more than an example of Candace Dempsey as a source, and the reasonings of those who take her as their source.”

Odeed (15996 p. 400) wrote,
“Any evidence of this, or are you taking your account from Candace Dempsey who repeated a single account from one article, despite all the media there from the UK.”

odeed (16078 p 402) wrote,
“Yes, I believe the that Dempsey's story of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba being paraded/driven around Perugia on the 6th November to be false.”

odeed (16154 p. 404) wrote,
“I am not making the claim, I am questioning the often repeated statement that Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were driven or paraded through the old city of Perugia with lights and sirens going, I have made no mention of the statement made by the police so please do not try and derail the discussion.

I have asked for evidence, but so far the only accounts given are of Lumumba arrest on the morning 6th November.”

Tsig (16260 p 407) wrote,
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.”

Let’s start by reconsidering the DailyMail account,

It is November 6, four days after Meredith's body was discovered, and a ten-strong convoy of police cars, sirens blaring, blasts through the winding streets of Perugia.
Officers have spent the previous night interviewing their three prime suspects, Knox, Sollecito and bar owner Patrick Lumumba.
As they approach the police station, they extend their arms through the open windows and wave their fists in triumph at the crowd.
'It was an incredible sight,' said someone present on the day.
'I have seen the police behave like this only once before, and that was when they arrested one of the country's most notorious Mafia dons. They were celebrating, saying: "Look at us, look at what we have achieved."' [end quote]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...dence-Meredith-murder-case.html#ixzz16GGpTUEv

I surmise that the word “approach” should be changed to “leave.” Odeed seems to believe that the account above refers to Mr. Lumumba’s arrival at the police station. Yet Mr. Lumumba was arrested near dawn, and there would not have been a reason for crowds to be gathering as he was brought in. Moreover, the video clip looks like broad daylight to me, not sunrise.

What we have above are claims of what Candace Dempsey’s sources are, claims without support. In fact Ms. Dempsey’s sources included a cameraman who took footage of the parade and Elio Bertoldi, a journalist with Corriere Dell'Umbria who attended the press conference. Frank was not a source and did not at first believe that the police honked their horns until he saw the tape. Thus the claims above are flat out wrong. The sequence of events was,

1. Patrick arrested, Amanda arrested, Raffaele arrested.
2. Perp walk for all 3, captured on film. One sees them taken one-by-one and put into their own personal patrol cars. That means 3 cars.
3. All 3 cars begin the parade, loudly honking their horns, while reporters chase after them. You can hear the horns on the press videos.
4. Press conference led by DeFelice. "The motive is sexual," he says.
5. Mignini, Giobbi and all the other big shots etc. seen leaving the Questura together.

 

[Onofarar]

How could introducing these statements, which I don't think anyone believes are true, lead to the court allowing a testing of that stain?

How does the prosecution disprove these statements otherwise? Do they have ironclad witnesses, like Patrick did, of their presence somewhere else at the time of the murder? If not, then agreeing to tests is the easiest way to disprove the statements and therefore disallow their testimony. I think the prosecution is afraid of the implications that arise from these tests regardless of their outcome.

 

[Onofarar]

I almost forgot the other possible prosecution argument - "there is no evidence of either of the proposed witnesses in the murder room". Now that would be funny since they would be applying one of AK's defense arguments (and RS's as well if the DNA on the bra clasp is overturned).

 

[el buscador]

Just read the article in the Guardian by Douglas Preston. He states, "Everything hinges on whether the appeal court will decide to retry the case or just re-examine parts. I would not be surprised if they convict Knox on lesser charges, proclaim time served, and get her out of the country. Italians are deeply embarrassed at the bright light this case has shone on their criminal-justice system."

Are the Italians embarrassed by this trial? What, I wonder, are the chances that this will be the outcome of the appeals?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/amanda-knox-appeal

 

[platonov]

More lowlights.

platonov,

A A commenter would lose credibility with me if he or she quoted a passage from a source that misled the reader into thinking that the whole essay or article said something other than its true intent. He or she would also lose credibility by bolding or highlighting a passage and ignoring what came just before or after. You wrote today, “Oh you mean after I called you on the selective quotation…” Let’s look to see who is being selective.

In message 15975 you highlighted one clause and not the next clause in the same sentence, which utterly neutralized the previous one. With respect to the gift statement, the more passages that were quoted (my message 16051), the more Amanda’s confusion became apparent. She makes it clear that she doubts her own memory. To sum up, the first passage I quoted is supported by the document, taken as a whole. I am still hoping that you will concede that you were wrong.

B You were evasive with respect to the argument in the appeal about the knife. Massei’s reasoning was again claimed to be wanting, yet you have not attempted a counterargument. Instead, you claimed that my reasoning would preclude a person’s being convicted whenever a murder weapon could not be recovered (17064). This is false. My position is that the judgment must be made on the evidence presented in court. If no evidence was presented to support that one of Raffaele’s knives was involved, then the case has to be decided without referring to it (or to any other nonexistent evidence). You never addressed this point. Instead (message 17038), you selectively highlighted Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony and not the court’s reaching beyond the evidence.

C You spoke out of both sides of your mouth with respect to Hampikian and Garofano. On the one hand, you said that you had no idea, but on the other, you implied that the matter was too complex to discuss in a lengthy paragraph from Darkness Descending. How would you know this, unless you claim knowledge of the subject?

As for Garofano’s relevance, he is the coauthor of a book on the case, and he was quoted in a British newspaper just as the appeal was beginning. Moreover, the passages you quoted from Massei imply his view of this evidence is the same as Garofano’s and Mignini’s I don’t know how it is possible to be more wrong than you were in this instance.

Your credibility suffers when you selectively highlight some passage and ignore others that contradict it, when you put words in other people’s mouths, and when you fail to address the substance of another commenter’s point. It is your own words and the lack of citations which lead me to conclude that your contributions here are not constructive and your credibility is nil. Now it is time to move on.

A So basically you claim that because I bolded one line in a short quote but not the next, which was clearly visible, this is similar to your actions which I have shown above.
No Sir - that is too ridiculous

B On the knife - my point stands, It is a very weak claim for the defence to make.
If you wish to discuss it - Post the appeal doc or a link to same, a line from the Mail (or your version of what it is) wont do.

C On the forensics - There is no contradiction, to discuss forensics based on 5 lines is ridiculous even leaving aside the fact that I don't have a copy of the book and your record when it comes to 'quotes' is spotty at best.

On the larger issue of who is qualified to discuss this field.... While I [after waiting for a response to simple questions] quickly and easily found and posted (some of) the relevant sections dealing with the forensics in Massei, you went round in circles attacking Garofano, produced a few lines from the book DD and mentioned something about UK newspapers, with quotes from The Sun of all places (or was that CW ?)

Indeed in the highlighted section above you are 100% wrong as regards your own quoted version of Garofano - and this is just plain English not forensics.

I think anybody looking for an honest and relevant response on the issue as it relates to this case might not beat a path to your door.

We can move on anytime you wish, but your credibility issues will continue to 'dog' you. My contributions here are not constructive from your (and others) perspective for obvious reasons.

ETA * 17038 had nothing to do with the knife - it referred to dating DNA etc

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Preston on Massei

Just read the article in the Guardian by Douglas Preston. He states, "Everything hinges on whether the appeal court will decide to retry the case or just re-examine parts. I would not be surprised if they convict Knox on lesser charges, proclaim time served, and get her out of the country. Italians are deeply embarrassed at the bright light this case has shone on their criminal-justice system."

Are the Italians embarrassed by this trial? What, I wonder, are the chances that this will be the outcome of the appeals?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/amanda-knox-appeal

"At times the loquacious Massei speculated freely, without offering evidence, about such basic issues as motive, the murder weapon(s) used, how the murder was committed, and why."

 

[platonov]

"At times the loquacious Massei speculated freely, without offering evidence, about such basic issues as motive, the murder weapon(s) used, how the murder was committed, and why."

Preston, that name rings a bell
Oh, right.

.

 

[lane99]

...Even it is proven that the computer had human use during the night it in no way, shape or form provides an alibi for Amanda...

If you had said it wouldn't provide any "evidence" to support her alibi, you would have been no less wrong, but at least your comment would have been less conceptually addled.

At any rate, by excluding him from your glib remark, may I presume you agree that- if it can be shown that the computer was more or less in continuous use from 9pm to 1am- that WOULD "provide an alibi" for the boyfriend?