Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

You have not answered my question. However, your comment is as ridiculous a statement as I have heard anyone make on this thread, and that is no small feat. It is first of all utterly nonspecific; neither the names of individuals nor what they say are indicated. Do you really believe that nearly 100% of what is found at Perugia-Shock is false? If so, what is the factual basis for your claim? Have you actually read and understood what Dr. Waterbury wrote about stochastic processes with reference to LCN DNA profiling? If so, are you claiming that it is false? I cannot see the point in continuing to engage with you.

Who IS "Mark Waterbury"?!

Mark Waterbury's webpage indicates that he studied "materials science" (not LCN DNA testing of crime scene traces).

He is NOT a geneticist. Far from it.

"Materials science"?! I probably spent more time running gels during my undergrad days!

In fact, it's possible "Mark Waterbury" has never set foot in a genetics lab.

What can you tell us about him, Halides?

In fact what can you tell us about "Frank Sfarzo"?

Do either of these amateur bloggers you admire have a profession or an employer?

 

[treehorn]

Spontaneous utterance is a exception to the rule against hearsay in common law jurisprudence. Hearsay is an unsworn, out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Excited utterance is a statement made immediately after an event sufficiently exciting so as to suspend reflective power, such that the statement made because it was true, rather than calculated. AK's "gift" doesn't seem to me to qualify.

It is, however, a declaration against interest, and thus admissible under common law.

Intelligent life!

Welcome.

 

[treehorn]

The answer is that the so-called professional has been shown to be wrong repeatedly by several commenters on this thread--and always wrong in a way that is unfavorable to Knox and Sollecito. Frank is not anonymous; everyone who cares to look into it knows his pen name and his given name.

What is his given name?

Does he have a job?

If so, who does he work for?

 

[Solange305]

Just a small comment, I have to agree that Treehorn has a point, about using Frank and Candace Dempsey as sources, he is right. But in my opinion that can apply to Barbie as well, all journalists make mistakes.

Personally, I trust Barbie more than Frank or Candace, but I have to say that I highly doubt that Raffaele's stepmother said **** you. Unless Im missing something, she is Italian, the people she would be yelling at (judges and juries) are italian, so why yell in english? Unless Im missing part of the story.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

aspersions

Hold on - are you saying that the major* appeal of [rescuing] AK is not related to her underwear or sex life.

When did this happen ?

* Obviously there are also other 'factors' - equally exalted.

platonov,

Your words above are a broadcast attack on those of us who are defending two people we believe were wrongfully convicted. Elsewhere (message 18518, page 463) you wrote, " [unlike me, or indeed others here - one of whom seems, IMO, to indulge in (dead victim) rape fantasy, hehehe]"

I don't know anyone here to whom these descriptions apply. There is no point (indeed, no possibility) in engaging with someone who makes these sorts of aspersions about his or her opponents.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

and other answers, too

What is his given name?

treehorn,

The answer can be found on page 31 of Murder in Italy.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

The answer can be found on page 31 of Murder in Italy.

Oh?

And who does he work for?

 

[platonov]

platonov,

Your words above are a broadcast attack on those of us who are defending two people we believe were wrongfully convicted. Elsewhere (message 18518, page 463) you wrote, " [unlike me, or indeed others here - one of whom seems, IMO, to indulge in (dead victim) rape fantasy, hehehe]"

I don't know anyone here to whom these descriptions apply. There is no point (indeed, no possibility) in engaging with someone who makes these sorts of aspersions about his or her opponents.

Broadcast attack - hardly [ask Mastercard]

I am referring, obviously, to (a section of) the uninformed xenophobic credulous masses who fall for the partisan 'spin' or mercenary hackery of the likes of '48 Hrs', C Dempsey, Frank S, Spherical Spheres (Waterbury), IIP, FoAK, S Moore etc etc etc...
Not the skeptics who post on this forum - why would you even think that ?
[they are covered by the MA, so I couldn't make that charge even if I thought it were true]

In any case you have several unanswered posts of mine, directly relevant to the case under discussion, to respond to - regarding, for example, J/H being used in the appeal or the value of Frank S as a source.

 

[moodstream]

What you are saying here, in essence, is that you agree with Tom's point, which is that it would be possible to break the window from inside the room in a fashion which is indistinguishable from it having been done from outside the room.

I pointed this out quite some time ago, when Professor Kevin, WFA (World's Foremost Authority) was wearing his Physics Expert hat. It is important to note that this has been in response to assertions that the distribution of the glass proved beyond all question that the rock must have been thrown from outside the building. Agreeing as you have that it does not merely moves the goal post ... in a rather disingenuous fashion.

Well, I was summarizing someone else's point. My personal view is that if you try hard enough, anything is possible. I am not trying to cleverly win an argument about guilt. What I wish I could do is subtract items from the debate that are not worth debating. Personally, I think almost all of the the break in evidence indicates that it could have been a legitimate break in, or it could have been staged. Neither are necessarily so.

 

[Malkmus]

Perhaps because Frank uses logic and evidence instead of appeal to emotion. He also attended and wrote about the entire trial. But I can see how his blog might not interest someone who is obsessed with Amanda's underwear and sex life.

And because we also know that Nadeau is not immune to making gross errors when it comes to this case. If she had a perfect track record it would maybe be harder to fathom that she misheard what she did.

 

[moodstream]

Yes but in this case, for example, you don't know that the area was generally not susceptible to shoeprints or that the search was not very thorough. You may just assume this as a person making his opinion as an internet lurker, but in practice any defensive argument should start by knowing this and bring a proof of this. We can't say neither that thse witnesses had a vested interest, this speculation is unelaborated and unsubstantiated.

The only way the defense could prove it would be to go back in time and test the soil the night of Nov 1. What else would satisfy you? On the other hand, it would have been just swell if the police had a video of one of the Barney Fife's of the force, I mean a lighter weight fellow, lightly stepping below the window, proving a footprint must be made, and the shoe soiled. Another great thing would be a video of an taller agile police person making an at least half sincere attempt to try to climb in the window using various strategies. Then we could see for ourselves how unlikely success would be.

As things stand we have only the impression left in the memories of a couple of people on the police payroll whose career success may well depend on the quality of their reflections. It's enough for you, and obviously for many others. It is not proof.

 

[moodstream]

I'm not sure what that measurement would tell you since most people are able to move their fingers and touch their thumb. It's call an opposable grip.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...posable-thumb-gives-the-human-hand-its-unique

You are correct. My assumption is that someone would grab someone completely by the throat and stretch their hand around the neck, but it doesn't have to be that way, you are right.

 

[TomM43]

Just a small comment, I have to agree that Treehorn has a point, about using Frank and Candace Dempsey as sources, he is right. But in my opinion that can apply to Barbie as well, all journalists make mistakes.

Personally, I trust Barbie more than Frank or Candace, but I have to say that I highly doubt that Raffaele's stepmother said **** you. Unless Im missing something, she is Italian, the people she would be yelling at (judges and juries) are italian, so why yell in english? Unless Im missing part of the story.

Hi Solange. There is an Italian verb that means the same and starts with an F. It has an "o" "t" two times, and, I think, in this context would be conjugated so as to end with an "a". It sounds vaguely like "forza".

 

[Mary_H]

Who IS "Mark Waterbury"?!

Mark Waterbury's webpage indicates that he studied "materials science" (not LCN DNA testing of crime scene traces).

He is NOT a geneticist. Far from it.

"Materials science"?! I probably spent more time running gels during my undergrad days!

In fact, it's possible "Mark Waterbury" has never set foot in a genetics lab.

What can you tell us about him, Halides?

In fact what can you tell us about "Frank Sfarzo"?

Do either of these amateur bloggers you admire have a profession or an employer?

You made the claim that close to 100% of everything coming out of their mouths was at odds with evidence from the trial and you don't know who they are?

 

[treehorn]

You made the claim that close to 100% of everything coming out of their mouths was at odds with evidence from the trial and you don't know who they are?

Yup.

I've read what "Frank Sfarzo" has to say in his amateur blog, but haven't a clue who he really is or who he really works for.

All I can say for certain is that:

1) he appears to be an amateur Perugian blogger going by the 'stage name' "Frank Sfarzo";

2) he has a free Google account/ amateur blog on blogspot.com; &

3) he posed for a picture with the step father of the accused in an article about the website they'd set up for the accused.

Other than that, I don't have a clue as to whether he has an education or a legitimate profession.

I'm still waiting for Halides to tell me more about his fondness for "Mark Waterbury." (Is he an amateur blogger/ unemployed materials scientist/ wannbe true crime writer?)

 

[Mary_H]

Yup.

I've read what "Frank Sfarzo" has to say in his amateur blog, but haven't a clue who he really is or who he really works for.

All I can say for certain is that:

1) he appears to be an amateur Perugian blogger going by the 'stage name' "Frank Sfarzo";

2) he has a free Google account/ amateur blog on blogspot.com; &

3) he posed for a picture with the step father of the accused in an article about the website they'd set up for the accused.

Other than that, I don't have a clue as to whether he has an education or a legitimate profession.

I'm still waiting for Halides to tell me more about his fondness for "Mark Waterbury." (Is he an amateur blogger/ unemployed materials scientist/ wannbe true crime writer?)

You may be surprised to learn that people's so-called qualifications are much less relevant than their knowledge. Bill Gates is a college drop-out, but he knows a lot about software. I would never say he was wrong about anything, unless I had done a lot of research and was darn sure of myself.

In order to question other people's knowledge, it is customary to be as or more knowledgeable than they are in the area you are challenging. (Unless, of course, you don't care about being persuasive.)

You haven't shown yourself to be knowledgeable in any of the subject matter you have disparaged others for, and you don't seem to know much about this case, either. Did you come here just to say what a bad girl Amanda is?

 

[treehorn]

You may be surprised to learn that people's so-called qualifications are much less relevant than their knowledge. Bill Gates is a college drop-out, but he knows a lot about software. I would never say he was wrong about anything, unless I had done a lot of research and was darn sure of myself.

In order to question other people's knowledge, it is customary to be as or more knowledgeable than they are in the area you are challenging. (Unless, of course, you don't care about being persuasive.)

You haven't shown yourself to be knowledgeable in any of the subject matter you have disparaged others for, and you don't seem to know much about this case, either. Did you come here just to say what a bad girl Amanda is?

Bill Gates may have "dropped out", but he dropped out of HARVARD College.

Alas, I readily admit that I am nowhere near as well-versed in the minutiae of this case as some of the posters here, or over at PMF, appear to be.

However, I have followed the coverage of this case quite closely since November, 2007, and have taken the time to read the translation of the Court's judgment.

I came here to see what some of the 'brighter lights' had to say about the case.

 

[Mary_H]

Bill Gates may have "dropped out", but he dropped out of HARVARD College.

I can't believe you said that. You are incorrigible.

Alas, I readily admit that I am nowhere near as well-versed in the minutiae of this case as some of the posters here, or over at PMF, appear to be.

That's a step in the right direction.

However, I have followed the coverage of the case quite closely since November, 2007, and have taken the time to read the translation of the Court's judgment. I know BS when I see it.

Then why are you pretending the Massei report makes sense?

I came here to see what some of the 'brighter lights' had to say about the case.

Some of the colpevolisti "brighter lights" jumped ship from JREF awhile back. Michael/Fulcanelli encouraged them to stay away after JREF suspended him. Now he writes to us from over at PMF.

 

[treehorn]

Most of the colpevolisti "brighter lights" jumped ship from JREF awhile back. Michael/Fulcanelli encouraged them to stay away after JREF suspended him. Now he writes to us from over at PMF.

PMF is a wonderful resource for case information, but I'm also interested in what the 'brighter lights' of the 'innocentisti' have to say. I want to see what their arguments are made of, so to speak.



PS I'm finding that the closer I get to some of those lights, the dimmer they seem.

 

[Mary_H]

PMF is a wonderful resource for case information, but I'm also interested in what the 'brighter lights' of the 'innocentisti' have to say. I want to see what their arguments are made of, so to speak.

Ah, this is so tempting, but I think I will leave the replies to others.