Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I would imagine that the defence teams are far more aware of a) the importance and b) the "provability" of this issue than they were at the time of the first trial. Facetious remarks such as those by Platonov that the defence teams should fly people like us over to be their new "experts" indicate to me that Platonov either doesn't understand the science here, or (s)he is in denial of it.

I suspect that the defence teams will have instructed one or more internationally-respected forensic pathologists to testify that Meredith almost certainly died by 9.30pm, and certainly before 10pm. I have little doubt that they will be able to back up their personal professional opinions with all the available research literature. If that's the case, we will then see how the new prosecutor chooses to reconcile this with all the other parts of the prosecution's original case. I'm guessing that he won't find that task very easy...

The only thing that concerns me is whether the court will be factual and logical. I´m hopeful that they will be, but I´m worried that they will not be.

 

[Mary_H]

I do. But Amanda only had to remember the night before and the same morning. (That is when the questions were first asked of her.)

No one has any idea what questions were asked of Amanda the day Meredith's body was discovered. There is no reason to believe the police would have asked her anything other than where she was the night before. They certainly were not paying attention to her schedule of phone calls.

<snip>That would have been when the attack was over. There would have been time for a scream before the final wound.

I don't know where you stand on the scenario for the crime, but if you accept the prosecutor's version of events, don't you wonder why Meredith wouldn't have screamed more than once during the time it took for the three defendants to threaten her with a knife, hold her down, try to force her into sex and slash at her throat?

 

[platonov]

You forgot 2 girls, one bra. That was about 3 pages.

Hey, I never claimed the list was exhaustive - laziness on my part and being spoiled for choice.

What about the argument by KL [with a native Italian speaker no less] on the translation of the RS 'pricked with a knife' story - that was a goodie. Or LJ's fear that the new thread idea was part of a conspiracy by the gatekeepers to silence the voice that speaks 'truth to power'

.

 

[quadraginta]

I would imagine that the defence teams are far more aware of a) the importance and b) the "provability" of this issue than they were at the time of the first trial. Facetious remarks such as those by Platonov that the defence teams should fly people like us over to be their new "experts" indicate to me that Platonov either doesn't understand the science here, or (s)he is in denial of it.

I suspect that the defence teams will have instructed one or more internationally-respected forensic pathologists to testify that Meredith almost certainly died by 9.30pm, and certainly before 10pm. I have little doubt that they will be able to back up their personal professional opinions with all the available research literature. If that's the case, we will then see how the new prosecutor chooses to reconcile this with all the other parts of the prosecution's original case. I'm guessing that he won't find that task very easy...

I don't think it works that way.

Perhaps this is LJ's subtle way of acknowledging his true opinion concerning the utility ... and probity ... of defense experts.

He has been far from reticent in his treatment of experts whose testimony was less than helpful to the Knox defense, but I think he should be congratulated for such small glimpses of candor, even as hidden and infrequent as they may be.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nonsense

Your google 'theories' about ToD have already been dealt with on this thread, with much less ceremony than their exposition required, before I even started posting. Indeed I have already posted on them and their ramifications.
Your love of repetition is only matched by my disdain for same.

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

1. One sentence taken out of context from someone's on-line lecture notes, which ignored the rest of those notes which supported our position.
2. One sentence taken out of context from the abstract of a paper the pro-guilt side had not read, the body of which supported our position.
3. Incredulity that "experts" could get this wrong and we could get it right, which seemed to be impervious to the pesky fact that the scientific literature was on our side and that the job of an "expert" is to correctly state the results of peer-reviewed studies, as opposed to it being the job of peer-reviewed studies to conform with the statements of "experts".

After having been comprehensively spanked on this issue, and slunk away into the corner from some time, your new tack seems to be to just rewrite history and pretend that the entire thing happened completely differently.

In your version of history, which scientific papers did you cite to show that a 23:30 time of death was consistent with the state of Meredith's stomach contents? That would be the mythical paper that says that there could be identifiable pieces of cheese and vegetable fibre in the stomach five hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza, that there could be no digested matter whatsoever in the duodenum five hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza, or that it's possible to accidentally squeeze digested matter from the duodenum to the very end of the bowel through ligatures without noticing that you had done so. Which paper was that again?

Oh wait, it doesn't exist. It never has existed. You've looked and looked and been completely unable to find any such paper. That's because it doesn't exist, any more than a scientific paper exists that says that the speed of light in a vacuum is 55kph with the wind behind it.

PS Kevin Lowe has already withdrawn his ToD argument, see post - I tried to warn him that he had misinterpreted the fairly simple appeal doc claims but to no avail.

I'm not even sure which of your purely imaginary victories you are reliving here.

 

[platonov]

I don't think it works that way.

It 'kinda' does - as regards emphasis certainly & the defence wasn't stuck for experts in the trial.
But they are constrained [by reality, professional reputation, opposing experts etc] to a degree obviously - unlike online experts.

.

 

[platonov]

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

<snip>


I'm not even sure which of your purely imaginary victories you are reliving here.

Try clicking on the link - thats even easier than differentiating between the inside and outside faces of a window never mind gastric analysis or telling the time.

.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Mary_H
Let's keep all these great arguments in mind when discussing Amanda's trouble with phone calls, the time she ate dinner, etc.


I can guarantee you that by the time she testified at trial, Nara could no longer recall the exact sound of the scream she thinks she heard. Nonetheless, if she actually heard the eerie scream she thinks she heard, someone else would have heard it, too. Curatolo and other people were outside -- why didn't they hear it?

Meredith had neither the time nor the lung power to scream when she was attacked.

How do you know that?

Did you miss that - we had some personal 1st hand evidence from posters that murder victims never or cant scream - something to do with drowning IIRC.

.

 

[babycondor]

The Macavity Problem

No, it's definitely ad hom.

What is "the Macavity problem?" You're the only one on this thread who has ever mentioned that name. Maybe one of these days you'll let us in on your private joke.

"Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw--
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime--Macavity's not there"

T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

 

[Mary_H]

"Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw--
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime--Macavity's not there"

T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

Thank you, babycondor! Now if only we knew what platonov meant by it.

 

[platonov]

"Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw--
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime--Macavity's not there"

T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

I explained with the first usage - the reference was to spare (or changing) alibis.

But there is an element of groundhog day about these exchanges.

.

 

[Mary_H]

I explained with the first usage - the reference was to spare (or changing) alibis.

But there is an element of groundhog day about these exchanges.

.

True. And as in Groundhog Day, there has been improvement over time. I think it was Charlie who made a list just last night about all the "evidence" that has gone by the wayside.

 

[platonov]

Rewriting history

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

1. One sentence taken out of context from someone's on-line lecture notes, which ignored the rest of those notes which supported our position.
2. One sentence taken out of context from the abstract of a paper the pro-guilt side had not read, the body of which supported our position.
3. Incredulity that "experts" could get this wrong and we could get it right, which seemed to be impervious to the pesky fact that the scientific literature was on our side and that the job of an "expert" is to correctly state the results of peer-reviewed studies, as opposed to it being the job of peer-reviewed studies to conform with the statements of "experts".

After having been comprehensively spanked on this issue, and slunk away into the corner from some time, your new tack seems to be to just rewrite history and pretend that the entire thing happened completely differently.
In your version of history, which scientific papers did you cite to show that a 23:30 time of death was consistent with the state of Meredith's stomach contents? That would be the mythical paper that says that there could be identifiable pieces of cheese and vegetable fibre in the stomach five hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza, that there could be no digested matter whatsoever in the duodenum five hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza, or that it's possible to accidentally squeeze digested matter from the duodenum to the very end of the bowel through ligatures without noticing that you had done so. Which paper was that again?

Oh wait, it doesn't exist. It never has existed. You've looked and looked and been completely unable to find any such paper. That's because it doesn't exist, any more than a scientific paper exists that says that the speed of light in a vacuum is 55kph with the wind behind it.



I'm not even sure which of your purely imaginary victories you are reliving here.

You appear confused on this issue - your ToD theories had been dispatched [less often than they had been trumpeted admittedly] without much ceremony long before I started posting on this thread.

Frankly I have since given them more space than was necessary but usually to highlight the ridiculous or contrived nature of them - Or to highlight the 'ramifications' for the lone wolf theory.

For myself I have dealt directly with several of your 'theories' - and usually elicited no response* bar silence.

Rewriting history indeed.

* For example recently I have had to correct your 'screensaver' /computer logs misunderstanding several times with no response.

Or shall we revisit the 'broken window' perplexity - I have the link handy. How come you never challenge me to back up what I say on this issue

.

 

[Kaosium]

Nonsense

Your google 'theories' about ToD have already been dealt with on this thread, with much less ceremony than their exposition required, before I even started posting. Indeed I have already posted on them and their ramifications.
Your love of repetition is only matched by my disdain for same.

As I said to shuttlt - why don't you link to the best refutations [if any exist - think Popper ] and save him/others all the trouble.
For anybody who cant wait for your link, the post on the top of page 455 already referenced [or go directly to Massei] should serve as a starting point.

PS Kevin Lowe has already withdrawn his ToD argument, see post - I tried to warn him that he had misinterpreted the fairly simple appeal doc claims but to no avail.

That was hardly a 'withdraw,' he simply pointed out if the computer logs showed constant use all night then it didn't matter what the time of death was. Incidentally, what do you believe the appeal docs say? I still am unsure of what was claimed by the defense in this regard.

Regarding the claim you made that Kevin and John's work was 'refuted,' from reading the thread I found the most compelling post advanced in opposition to be Machiavelli's here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6389066&postcount=8189

However that's not quite the same thing, thus:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6389116&postcount=8190

I found this one with context especially convincing:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6389182&postcount=8196

 

[platonov]

True. And as in Groundhog Day, there has been improvement over time. I think it was Charlie who made a list just last night about all the "evidence" that has gone by the wayside.

Sorry, What's True ?
That I explained first time around & that you forgot or misunderstood OR are you just ignoring the thrust of the post thereby illustrating the point about groundhog day.

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I explained with the first usage - the reference was to spare (or changing) alibis.

But there is an element of groundhog day about these exchanges.

It's a curious attempt an intellectual judo that the pro-guilt side sometimes try, although it's best presented as obliquely as possible so as to conceal exactly what is being argued, since what exactly is being argued is very silly.

When there are two or more excellent reasons to believe a given guilter talking point is nonsense, one possible (although totally specious) response is to say "Why do you need two reasons to dismiss our talking point, hmm? Surely if either of them was any good you would only need one? No jury is ever going to believe you if you have two reasons to dismiss a given claim as nonsense!".

In this particular case we point out that Since Curatolo claimed he saw Amanda and Raffaele from 9:20pm or so onwards, and Amanda and Raffaele were at home until at least 9:10pm, Amanda and Raffaele cannot possibly have murdered Meredith if Curatolo is accurate given that she died during the period where we know Amanda and Raffaele were not at the murder scene. Then we point out in addition that the computer evidence puts the two of them at home all night, so Curatolo is lying or mistaken.

Platonov's attempt at a gotcha is to pretend that we are simultaneously arguing that Amanda and Raffaele were in front of Curatolo and also at home (which we are not), and then jump from this to the conclusion that since there are two excellent reasons to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were not at the murder scene, and one plus one equals zero, that adds up to no alibi at all.

It's quite an awkward fork Platonov is caught in, really.

1. If the evidence-based time of death cannot be moved back to 23:30, and it can't, and Curatolo is a sound witness, then Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because Curatolo gives them an alibi.
2. If Curatolo is not a sound witness, then there is absolutely no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were not at home at the time of the murder, so their alibi is sound.
3. Therefore to maintain a guilter narrative Platonov has to simultaneously maintain that Curatolo is a sound witness, and that the evidence-based time of death is 23:30, but both of these ideas have been hammered flat.
4. So what's left? Only the Chewbacca Defence - spread as much confusion as possible and act like you presented a compelling argument. Talk about Macavity and pretend that having a sound alibi even if you believe Curatolo, plus a sound alibi if you think Curatolo is a worthless witness, equals not having any alibi at all.

Sherlock Holmes (the fictional character, not the forum poster who uses that name) said that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Platonov's version of that dictum would be that while you can eliminate the things that are impossible once, if something is impossible twice then it must be the truth.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You appear confused on this issue - your ToD theories had been dispatched [less often than they had been trumpeted admittedly] without much ceremony long before I started posting on this thread.

Frankly I have since given them more space than was necessary but usually to highlight the ridiculous or contrived nature of them - Or to highlight the 'ramifications' for the lone wolf theory.

For myself I have dealt directly with several of your 'theories' - and usually elicited no response* bar silence.

Rewriting history indeed.

* For example recently I have had to correct your 'screensaver' /computer logs misunderstanding several times with no response.

Or shall we revisit the 'broken window' perplexity - I have the link handy. How come you never challenge me to back up what I say on this issue

.

That's because you're on my ignore list. I see no reason to engage with your posts beyond occasional recaps so that latecomers will realise that, to put it in the most polite way possible, there is disagreement as to whether you claims about what has happened in the past bear even the slightest resemblance to reality.

As far as the "broken window" perplexity, it almost doesn't bear explaining on a skeptical forum but since you brought it up, I was indeed unclear on what Massei and the guilters claimed happened with regard to the hypothetical staging of the broken window because the Massei report was ill-written and the guilters inconsistent. It didn't help that what Massei was claiming was nonsensical, since it required large chunks of glass to leap sideways asymmetrically, so for someone with a rational mind it was not an easy story to come up with independently.

However once someone explained what Massei had in mind, I agreed that it was the least worst interpretation of his theory and we moved on. That's how skepticism works: When new information comes along, you update your position.

The fact that you are still banging on about it even after I corrected my views on the matter is, I think, symptomatic of a peculiar guilter distortion of the argument that is rife on certain alternate forums and which you seem to be enamoured of. That is to try to turn the debate about the science and the facts into a debate about the personal authority of Halides1, LondonJohn and myself. You seem to think that if I was wrong about one thing (and subsequently amended my view) that diminishes my personal authority, and hence makes it less likely that Meredith died before 23:30 or something.

The problem is that it just doesn't matter. The science and the facts stand independent of me. This is not and never has been about anyone's personal authority, it's just about the science. You attack the person because you can't attack the science, but it's an entirely pointless endeavour that reveals nothing about the truth and a great deal about you.

 

[Diastole]

Monacchia's testimony

Antonella Monacchia is a very reliable witness.

I suppose there are a number of terms which could be used to describe the testimony of a witness who heard an "urlo fortissimo" in the night, learned the following afternoon of a murder which had occurred across the street, and then neglected to tell the police for months afterward - but "very reliable" would not be at the top of the list.

Interesting that she seems not to have heard the "running on the steel staircase", which was directly below her apartment, heard so clearly by Capezalli at a greater distance. Perhaps a little further reading about the case during her period of self-imposed silence might have avoided this inconsistency.

 

[platonov]

The defence lawyers are equally unimpressed.

It's a curious attempt an intellectual judo that the pro-guilt side sometimes try, although it's best presented as obliquely as possible so as to conceal exactly what is being argued, since what exactly is being argued is very silly.

When there are two or more excellent reasons to believe a given guilter talking point is nonsense, one possible (although totally specious) response is to say "Why do you need two reasons to dismiss our talking point, hmm? Surely if either of them was any good you would only need one? No jury is ever going to believe you if you have two reasons to dismiss a given claim as nonsense!".

In this particular case we point out that Since Curatolo claimed he saw Amanda and Raffaele from 9:20pm or so onwards, and Amanda and Raffaele were at home until at least 9:10pm, Amanda and Raffaele cannot possibly have murdered Meredith if Curatolo is accurate given that she died during the period where we know Amanda and Raffaele were not at the murder scene. Then we point out in addition that the computer evidence puts the two of them at home all night, so Curatolo is lying or mistaken.

Platonov's attempt at a gotcha is to pretend that we are simultaneously arguing that Amanda and Raffaele were in front of Curatolo and also at home (which we are not), and then jump from this to the conclusion that since there are two excellent reasons to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were not at the murder scene, and one plus one equals zero, that adds up to no alibi at all.

It's quite an awkward fork Platonov is caught in, really.

1. If the evidence-based time of death cannot be moved back to 23:30, and it can't, and Curatolo is a sound witness, then Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because Curatolo gives them an alibi.
2. If Curatolo is not a sound witness, then there is absolutely no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were not at home at the time of the murder, so their alibi is sound.
3. Therefore to maintain a guilter narrative Platonov has to simultaneously maintain that Curatolo is a sound witness, and that the evidence-based time of death is 23:30, but both of these ideas have been hammered flat.
4. So what's left? Only the Chewbacca Defence - spread as much confusion as possible and act like you presented a compelling argument. Talk about Macavity and pretend that having a sound alibi even if you believe Curatolo, plus a sound alibi if you think Curatolo is a worthless witness, equals not having any alibi at all.

Sherlock Holmes (the fictional character, not the forum poster who uses that name) said that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Platonov's version of that dictum would be that while you can eliminate the things that are impossible once, if something is impossible twice then it must be the truth.

I'll ignore the obvious errors of fact (as they relate to the case itself - they have been covered previously) or logic in this post and restrict myself to pointing out that the defence appeal docs confirmed my* prediction on the Macavity issue.

3 lines [out of 200 ? pages] I believe was all they spent on this.

* As I pointed out originally its a very simple point - it had already been made probably but I suspect the brevity I employ may be more suitable for this 'debate' that the more patient explanations of other posters.
Sometimes one has to pitch the argument to suit the audience.

ETA The Holmes 'quote' no longer (if ever) has the cachet you think - its mostly (IMO) employed by the less rational community [truthers, CT's etc] these days as a killer argument.

.

 

[platonov]

Withnail & I

That's because you're on my ignore list. I see no reason to engage with your posts beyond occasional recaps so that latecomers will realise that, to put it in the most polite way possible, there is disagreement as to whether you claims about what has happened in the past bear even the slightest resemblance to reality.

As far as the "broken window" perplexity, it almost doesn't bear explaining on a skeptical forum but since you brought it up, I was indeed unclear on what Massei and the guilters claimed happened with regard to the hypothetical staging of the broken window because the Massei report was ill-written and the guilters inconsistent. It didn't help that what Massei was claiming was nonsensical, since it required large chunks of glass to leap sideways asymmetrically, so for someone with a rational mind it was not an easy story to come up with independently.

However once someone explained what Massei had in mind, I agreed that it was the least worst interpretation of his theory and we moved on. That's how skepticism works: When new information comes along, you update your position.

The fact that you are still banging on about it even after I corrected my views on the matter is, I think, symptomatic of a peculiar guilter distortion of the argument that is rife on certain alternate forums and which you seem to be enamoured of. That is to try to turn the debate about the science and the facts into a debate about the personal authority of Halides1, LondonJohn and myself. You seem to think that if I was wrong about one thing (and subsequently amended my view) that diminishes my personal authority, and hence makes it less likely that Meredith died before 23:30 or something.

The problem is that it just doesn't matter. The science and the facts stand independent of me. This is not and never has been about anyone's personal authority, it's just about the science. You attack the person because you can't attack the science, but it's an entirely pointless endeavour that reveals nothing about the truth and a great deal about you.

So you're 'mistake' in claiming you had previously debated & dispatched me on the ToD issue is because .....you now have me on ignore.
Compelling logic indeed !

You and Withnail have a similar approach to rational discourse it seems.

I couldn't agree more.However the fact that you seemingly fail to understand simple arguments and the ones you propose are ridiculous has, I'm afraid, a bearing on the weight accorded to them.

As for the 'broken window' issue itself - a child could work it out in seconds - the fact that you couldn't, nor indeed make sense of the rather simple prose of Massei in the section dealing with this speaks volumes.

I'm not sure why you are associating me with another site [London John & Mary H have made similar accusations] - Do you believe posters are unconvinced by your arguments because we are all part of a conspiracy to hide 'the truth'
Isn't there a more mundane explanation

PS Nor have you acknowledged or corrected your 'screensaver' log / 'media files' error.

.