Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

I think this is the what I am remembering the dark room from:

"We asked the police to open the door but they said they couldn't so we decided to do it. Luca gave the door, which had a crack (a scratch, rotten part) near the handle, about four kicks and it opened. The room was quite dark but I was just able to see (just for a second???) a foot protruding from a cover.​

The quote is reposted on several blogs but SeattlePI seems to be the first english reference. I haven't found it in any Italian texts yet.

Ah, thanks Dan, I remembered this quote too and tried to find it yesterday but couldn't. If this is accurate then perhaps the curtains or shutters were opened at a later point.

 

[CDHost]

It's possible this is their motivation. I've certainly seen a few guilters who appear to be very threatened by and hateful towards non-standard sexuality, drugs other than alcohol and tobacco and those who enjoy them, and who seem to have the idea that this is powerful evidence of guilt rather than extraordinarily weak evidence of guilt. However I wouldn't say it's true of all of them.

I've actually noticed quite a bit else that is standard between the guilt community and authoritarian sects.
Right wing authoritarianism which is very common has both:

a) Strong support for traditional sexual morals
b) Blind support for political authorities seen as legitimate
c) A failure to address one's own hypocrisy

There are other traits. But yeah, I think the guilt community is basically an authoritarian sect. Ultimately it makes sense, they are a group of people who believe it is illegitimate to study the evidence.

The Massei conclusions report contains reproducibly falsifiable statements. That is the very definition of being in error.

 

[Alt+F4]

What moved me off not caring was the slander charge against the parents. That was blatant witness tampering. That's when I decided this prosecutor needed to be stopped.

So this prosecutor needs to be stopped? What are you doing to stop him?

 

[Alt+F4]

I've actually noticed quite a bit else that is standard between the guilt community and authoritarian sects.
Right wing authoritarianism which is very common has both:

a) Strong support for traditional sexual morals
b) Blind support for political authorities seen as legitimate
c) A failure to address one's own hypocrisy

There are other traits. But yeah, I think the guilt community is basically an authoritarian sect. Ultimately it makes sense, they are a group of people who believe it is illegitimate to study the evidence.

1. There is no "guilt community".
2. Almost all authoritarian sects go against traditional sexual morals.
3. Almost all authoritarian sects are opposed to traditional political authorities.
4. Study all the evidence you want to. No one cares if you do or don't.

Your post seems to be nothing more than, "Those folks at PMF are really, really mean!!!" It addresses nothing having to do with this case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've actually noticed quite a bit else that is standard between the guilt community and authoritarian sects.
Right wing authoritarianism which is very common has both:

a) Strong support for traditional sexual morals
b) Blind support for political authorities seen as legitimate
c) A failure to address one's own hypocrisy

There are other traits. But yeah, I think the guilt community is basically an authoritarian sect. Ultimately it makes sense, they are a group of people who believe it is illegitimate to study the evidence.

They have qualities in common - I'd add to the list a policy of shunning or expelling from the community anyone who diverges too far from the party line, an acceptance of lying in pursuit of the group's goals and a culture of fear of and alienation towards the outside world - more than one of them has stated that when they read mainstream news reports on the case they get the feeling the world has gone mad and they need to run back to PMF to soak up some "sane" talking points and reassure themselves that they are right.

The Massei conclusions report contains reproducibly falsifiable statements. That is the very definition of being in error.

To be fair many of them have renounced the Massei doctrine and experimented with other theories that try to conform better with the real time of death and the computer forensic evidence. There are still some Massei fundamentalists who haven't got the message, but we've shot enough holes in the good ship Massei/Christiani that the more free-thinking pro-guilt readers are jumping overboard and constructing their own rafts from the bits.

I also think that while they've got some qualities of an on-line cult, in the end they will never have the grip on a person's whole life that a real authoritarian cult has. It's a hobby group with cult-like qualities, but it's not their life. (Well, maybe it is for one or two of them). I think we'll see in the months to come that it's a lot easier to get out of the guilter world than to get out of a meatspace cult.

 

[christianahannah]

Chris C,

IIRC, Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Kercher share about 11 of 30 alleles across the various loci that make up the profile. This might explain the high/low effect you mention, depending upon wich peaks you mean. That having been said, I infer from the Massei report that they did a less extreme version of this in choosing which peaks to assign to the second person (after Ms. Kercher) whose DNA is on the clasp. In other words they choose a small peak instead of a larger one that would have been closer in size to the rest of Mr. Sollecito's profile in one or more instances. Even this is not necessarily fatal to their analysis, but it would almost certainly put Mr. Sollecito's profile into the low template DNA range and that suggests it should have been tested twice.

Mixtures are complicated, however, there was the extra step of the test for the Y-chromosome which was compatible to Raffaele. And there is more extracted DNA from the bra clasp which the independent experts will be able to analyze.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Mixtures are complicated, however, there was the extra step of the test for the Y-chromosome which was compatible to Raffaele. And there is more extracted DNA from the bra clasp which the independent experts will be able to analyze.

I have to say I'm looking forward to more information about that bra clasp and what the heck is on it, whether it's the hinted revelation of deliberate evidence planting some people think Sfarzo is sitting on, or just an second round of testing and an expert review of the analysis thereof.

I don't think the bra clasp DNA evidence alone makes a case against Sollecito plausible, but it's certainly by far the best single piece of evidence-like material they have and hence the most interesting.

 

[LiamG.]

@Kevin_Lowe:
Yes, of course it wasn`t an "advanced problem" in probability theory. Didn`t I mention this in my initial post?
I`ve earned some knowledge in probability theory/statistics due to my university education, so it wasn`t that difficult for me to construct this problem.
My intention was to pick one of the many scientific fields, of which you (indirectly or not) claim to have some deeper understanding and post a problem to check whether you are in possesion of the basic knowledge in this field and are able to apply it. Fortunately for you, Dan O. came to your rescue and posted a short and concise solution. It was my mistake not to ask all the others interested in this topic to post me "their solutions" via pm. However, the fact, that you were afraid of giving an attempt to solve this problem and wait for others to do the job for you gave me the impression, that you were just acting like a person, who attends unprepared and clueless an exam, finds a competent person of whom he can crib, as a result passing the exam and declaring: "Look, that was easy, let`s move on."
I mean, my goal wasn`t to show you up, but rather to get a confirmation of my feeling, that you`re sometimes (or often? I`m not sure) using scientific fields, of which you don`t know much about, to bolster your arguments.
Reading your many posts in this thread, I think, that you are anything but "scientifically illiterate", as you would call it, but that you are treading on thin ice, when you are "using science", that you (sometimes/often) hardly understand, to repeatedly declare, that you are much smarter than more than a dozen judges/jurors and a lot of (real) experts so far and tell, that you have "proven", although, which is another point, none of us has access to all the evidence in this case, that the defendants are innocent.

 

[s_pepys]

I'm guessing that he's claiming that part of the psychological motivation of guilters is a non-rational belief that female sexuality is dirty, dangerous, immoral, threatening or something similar, and thus that a overtly sexually active woman is either likely to be immoral or deserves punishment.

This view is attributed to some social conservatives, Catholics and whatnot by some progressives.

It's possible this is their motivation. I've certainly seen a few guilters who appear to be very threatened by and hateful towards non-standard sexuality, drugs other than alcohol and tobacco and those who enjoy them, and who seem to have the idea that this is powerful evidence of guilt rather than extraordinarily weak evidence of guilt. However I wouldn't say it's true of all of them.

un-bloody-believable!!!!!!

 

[moodstream]

@Kevin_Lowe:
Yes, of course it wasn`t an "advanced problem" in probability theory. Didn`t I mention this in my initial post?
I`ve earned some knowledge in probability theory/statistics due to my university education, so it wasn`t that difficult for me to construct this problem.
My intention was to pick one of the many scientific fields, of which you (indirectly or not) claim to have some deeper understanding and post a problem to check whether you are in possesion of the basic knowledge in this field and are able to apply it. Fortunately for you, Dan O. came to your rescue and posted a short and concise solution. It was my mistake not to ask all the others interested in this topic to post me "their solutions" via pm. However, the fact, that you were afraid of giving an attempt to solve this problem and wait for others to do the job for you gave me the impression, that you were just acting like a person, who attends unprepared and clueless an exam, finds a competent person of whom he can crib, as a result passing the exam and declaring: "Look, that was easy, let`s move on."
I mean, my goal wasn`t to show you up, but rather to get a confirmation of my feeling, that you`re sometimes (or often? I`m not sure) using scientific fields, of which you don`t know much about, to bolster your arguments.
Reading your many posts in this thread, I think, that you are anything but "scientifically illiterate", as you would call it, but that you are treading on thin ice, when you are "using science", that you (sometimes/often) hardly understand, to repeatedly declare, that you are much smarter than more than a dozen judges/jurors and a lot of (real) experts so far and tell, that you have "proven", although, which is another point, none of us has access to all the evidence in this case, that the defendants are innocent.

The objection I had with your post is that you have entitled yourself to be in control of the thread. You call the shots, the people direct them at have to respond. In addition, it has nothing to do with the thread. You put yourself in the position of judging whether another poster is worthy of posting on the board. What happens in the thread will happen to your personal satisfaction.

If either Komponisto or Kevin Lowe had responded, you will have established a particular form of relationship that they would find uninvited and unwanted. Why should they establish that with you?

You state I mean, my goal wasn`t to show you up and then immediately offer that you wish to confirm your feeling that Kevin Lowe uses scientific fields that he doesn`t know much about. Perhaps it’s the small distinction between ‘showing one up’ and ‘calling one out’ that you are going for. You could in fact engage him on the points he is making on the case, if you want to 'call him out'.

You also point that it wasn’t an advanced problem, which leads to another objection. If they answered correctly you could come back with another round. ‘Okay, you’ve made it through probability theory 100, now, how about probability 101, and so on ad infinitum, until this became LiamG’s personal probability thread.

I have no issue with taking a stance contrary to another poster. But I think you need to restrict yourself to assert a point relative to the case, arguing against a point, or providing information relative to the case.

Acting relative to other individuals who post, as individuals, is not allowed and the correct response was not to allow oneself to take the bait.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

closing this thread

un-bloody-believable!!!!!!

s_pepys,

On other Knox-tagged threads you have claimed that this thread is a haven for conspiracy theorists. You have also asked that this thread be closed. You have not replied to my comments on conspiracy theorists, which is that commenters on both sides of the issue of guilt have answered the question of what it would take to change their minds. In other words, the commenters here, whatever their faults, are not conspiracy theorists. I am having a difficult time convincing myself that there is a point in offering evidence to someone who has written off this thread as CT material.

I am a great believer in trying to engage other posters, so long as we both remain civil. However, it is difficult to see the point in discussing the case with someone whose avowed goal is to end discussion. Can you explain why it is, assuming you believe it so?

 

[CDHost]

So this prosecutor needs to be stopped? What are you doing to stop him?

Joining an international movement opposed to those sorts of prosecutorial abuses which seems to have support from within Italy's government.

 

[CDHost]

1. There is no "guilt community".
2. Almost all authoritarian sects go against traditional sexual morals.
3. Almost all authoritarian sects are opposed to traditional political authorities.
4. Study all the evidence you want to. No one cares if you do or don't.

Your post seems to be nothing more than, "Those folks at PMF are really, really mean!!!" It addresses nothing having to do with this case.

1. Of course there is, they even identify themselves as such.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
3. See #2

 

[Chris C]

Chris C,

IIRC, Mr. Sollecito and Ms. Kercher share about 11 of 30 alleles across the various loci that make up the profile. This might explain the high/low effect you mention, depending upon wich peaks you mean. That having been said, I infer from the Massei report that they did a less extreme version of this in choosing which peaks to assign to the second person (after Ms. Kercher) whose DNA is on the clasp. In other words they choose a small peak instead of a larger one that would have been closer in size to the rest of Mr. Sollecito's profile in one or more instances. Even this is not necessarily fatal to their analysis, but it would almost certainly put Mr. Sollecito's profile into the low template DNA range and that suggests it should have been tested twice.

Yes but my point I was trying to make. Since I have done a couple of paternity tests, I have a copy of my profile. That profile range was so large on the alleles, I was able to match my profile on every allele but one.

 

[komponisto]

un-bloody-believable!!!!!!

I don't understand your point.

 

[Dan O.]

Ah, thanks Dan, I remembered this quote too and tried to find it yesterday but couldn't. If this is accurate then perhaps the curtains or shutters were opened at a later point.

Perhaps the outside shutters had been opened. It seems somebody should have made a note of the fact that they opened them. I don't see how the curtains could have been opened as there appear to be no curtains, no curtain rod and no hardware for a curtain rod to attach to. The only possibility would be a curtain on a spring rod but this would interfere with opening the windows and I have seen no sign of the curtain or spring rod in and photos from around the house.

The quite dark room however may be a relative term. It was mid day, Meredith's window faces North so wouldn't have direct sunlight. The patio door would have direct sunlight filling the hall and the adjacent bath would be well lit through the skylight. The difference going from bright sunlight to an indirectly lit room would account for the room appearing dark.

 

[CDHost]

windowserver.log

OK I wrote up the explanation on windowserver.log

1) If anybody ever gets the actual contents of the log file that were generated that would make the article much stronger.

2) Let me know what you think. Was it useful in covering the computer forensics?

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps the outside shutters had been opened. It seems somebody should have made a note of the fact that they opened them. I don't see how the curtains could have been opened as there appear to be no curtains, no curtain rod and no hardware for a curtain rod to attach to. The only possibility would be a curtain on a spring rod but this would interfere with opening the windows and I have seen no sign of the curtain or spring rod in and photos from around the house.

The quite dark room however may be a relative term. It was mid day, Meredith's window faces North so wouldn't have direct sunlight. The patio door would have direct sunlight filling the hall and the adjacent bath would be well lit through the skylight. The difference going from bright sunlight to an indirectly lit room would account for the room appearing dark.

Yes, I didn't have a photo handy to check whether there were curtains or not, so was just speaking generally in terms of curtains and/or shutters. Agreed that it could just generally have been quite a dark room.

 

[Malkmus]

I've actually noticed quite a bit else that is standard between the guilt community and authoritarian sects.
Right wing authoritarianism which is very common has both:

a) Strong support for traditional sexual morals
b) Blind support for political authorities seen as legitimate
c) A failure to address one's own hypocrisy

There are other traits. But yeah, I think the guilt community is basically an authoritarian sect. Ultimately it makes sense, they are a group of people who believe it is illegitimate to study the evidence.

The Massei conclusions report contains reproducibly falsifiable statements. That is the very definition of being in error.

I've thought of this comparison myself actually. Tea party comes to mind especially and the political-type mud-slinging of any person who comes forward to speak on behalf of their innocence. Personal lives of these proponents are immediate fodder for this mud-slinging and desperate attempts to discredit their profession are always made no matter how ridiculous. Reading some of the arguments discrediting certain FBI agents is like watching one of those tasteless political ads shot in black and white and narrated by an ominous voice over unflattering candid shots of said person.

 

[CDHost]

Reply to SomeAlibi

I was notified that importing is illegal so I'm blanking the quote. I'll keep the content.

This was originally a response to a comment on PMF by SomeAlibi about my use of the term rabbit punch along with a paragraph of name calling. I wanted to pick a common forum.

____

Since I know she reads here and , since she seems genuinely confused about what a rabbit punch is I thought I'd explain. A rabbit punch is a blow to the neck or to the base of the skull. It is considered especially dangerous because it can damage the cervical vertebrae and subsequently the spinal cord, which may lead to serious spinal cord injury or even death. It is not literally a closed handed punch, it is the force of the impact not the concentration that is important. About a month ago I wrote in my intro article on this topic:

And what Knox describes, strikes to the back of the head, are very dangerous and used primarily to avoid bruising. I don't have good statistics but using these sorts of methods would seem to imply a nonchalance about whether the suspect suffers brain damage. These sorts of hits cause the brain stem to separate from the brain with the degree of force and exact type of hit determining the degree of separation. They are called "rabbit punches" because this type of blow was traditionally how hunters killed rabbits. If true, her life was quite literally in danger and confusion from head trauma isn't totally unreasonable.