The first mention of Naruto, October 4th, 2008.
But he did mention it in 2008, along with the fact that his defense team said he was on the computer all night in November 2007.
I'm sure you don't trust them and I don't intend to try to convince you to read them. I merely meant that both sides have their lists of facts and things refuted. The pro-innocence camps lists aren't the only ones, and the pro-innocence camps opinion that their own lists haven't been refuted tells us little in this debate. Either side presumably thinks as you do that the others lists are old, many times refuted and not worth bothering with. If they didn't they could hardly believe in their own case, could they?
Do you have link or reference to this story?
I believe what you write of is indeed possible, since apparently Dr. Stefanoni tested some footprints for blood, they tested negative, and she then told the court she never even tested them, since, I speculate, she did not like the results.
Hi Dan O.!
On what basis do you say she probably didn't understand her first statement? It isn't complicated or long. There was a translator present. The later documents produced that night appear to reinforce the fact that at those points she understands the contents of the 1:45am document.
I think you are doing extremely well if you can get within a few orders of magnitude of any of the numbers.
To you it isn't surprising and the defences argument is plausible. To others it is surprising and it isn't convincing. Might the answer of your analysis not depend on who is deciding the probabilities?
I appreciate that what you descibe is Bayesian analysis. None the less your argument depends on saying that the important facts of the case are X, Y, and Z and then assigning odds to them. Isn't this just a more formal version of what everybody else has been doing all along. In an environment where it can't even be agreed that Raffaele's DNA on the knife is surprising, given their innocence, or not I struggle to see how one can proceed with this kind of analysis.
Sure. But presumably the guilters over on PMF could bung in their proven facts and probabilities and prove that Amanda is guilty. What is this but a formal way of explaining your impression of the evidence in the case?
Does you finding the lists questionable, or a given theory of the crime laughable contradict anything I was saying?
I looked into this at one time. It's something of a red herring. The comment may be found in the trial transcript. It derives from a transcription of a covertly recorded conversation between Amanda and her mother at the prison. They were discussing the DNA findings on the knife found at Raf's apartment. "There" does refer to that apartment. Forget now where I got that, but it's out there somewhere.