Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Would you be shocked to the core, or just a bit surprised?

As for the upsetment... It's amazing how much reading of signs and portents goes on in relation to the appeal.

No reading of signs needed on this. She said why she was upset at yet another delay.

 

[shuttlt]

Not as mod:

I think it very likely that the appeals will fail.

This opinion has not, and will not, affect any moderation I have done or will do in this thread.

If I could tempt you to de-mod to answer a quick question (just on I promise). Is that based on your assessment of the evidence, or the fact that nothing much has changed between the two trials?

 

[Justinian2]

Not as mod:

I think it very likely that the appeals will fail.

This opinion has not, and will not, affect any moderation I have done or will do in this thread.

I hope you're wrong. I don't want to be discussing this for the next decade.

Why do you think it will fail? 1.) Because the Italian courts of flaws are run by the insane, or 2.) because you think there is some evidence that will prove that Amanda is guilty?

What's the chance of two innocent people being found guilty at the same time? The probability should be P squared, or a very small number if the percentage of innocent people incarcerated is small.

 

[theRealBob]

Could you show me your workings here. They got to the police station after 10pm. She sat in the waiting room. She did her homework. She talked to the police. She did some stretching. She spoke on the phone. Is that all part of the 4 & 1/4 hours? Did he see her immediately after that to get that impression. Or do you mean the thing with Mignini later on? how do you get to 4 & 1/4 hours. It seems very precise.

From memory 1am to 5:45 is right and ingeniously adds up to 4 an 3/4 hours which is wrong when related to my earlier post.

 

[shuttlt]

No reading of signs needed on this. She said why she was upset at yet another delay.

Are there any "facts" about the case that there aren't two totally different explanations for? I remember ages ago hoping to find some nugget of agreed ground and working out from there. That was about 18 months ago now.

 

[shuttlt]

1am to 5:45

Does Amanda say she was being interrogated that whole time? Also, why 1am?

 

[shuttlt]

What's the chance of two innocent people being found guilty at the same time? The probability should be P squared, or a very small number if the percentage of innocent people incarcerated is small.

I don't think it works like that Justinian.

 

[RoseMontague]

That's how I see it also - but time will tell.

OT And, may I say, that's a very handsome dog in your avatar

Yes,

Nice Avatar.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are there any "facts" about the case that there aren't two totally different explanations for? I remember ages ago hoping to find some nugget of agreed ground and working out from there. That was about 18 months ago now.

It is strange that just when you think something like Amanda's neck mark or the mixed blood claims have been agreed upon, it just pops back up again.

 

[Rolfe]

You might try clicking on the other link I gave you - & finding the post/thread.
Thats twice now I have provided it to you.

[And you wonder why I dont want to repeat arguments for the 38th time ?]

The bolded 6pm / this info is also a large clue.

ETA My PFLP-GC / IRA analogy still stands - for reasons which should by now be apparent.

I did click on it. It was a post by Rose Montague, which didn't seem to support your position at all. And if you insist on providing links that only display single posts instead of linking to the post in the context of the thread, then it's likely I will only read the single post.

If you can't say "there's good evidence to support the time of the meal being 7pm" but would rather post five times that amount of text being cryptic and obfuscatory, that's your problem not mine.

And I have absolutely zero idea what you mean by the PFLP-GC/IRA analogy. You could try not talking in riddles, and see if it improves your credibility.

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

It is strange that just when you think something like Amanda's neck mark or the mixed blood claims have been agreed upon, it just pops back up again.

The washing machine hasn't been talked about in a while. We could give that a go?

 

[Justinian2]

I don't think it works like that Justinian.

I'm starting to think the number of innocent people in jail is very large. Why? Because the number of people proven innocent because of DNA evidence is a relatively high percentage of the small number that have DNA evidence that could prove innocence. What percentage of all crimes had semen found at the scene?

The same ratio of innocent people found at scenes where semen was found to the total number of crimes where semen was found is probably close to the same ratio of innocent to guilty throughout the system.

Why? Because incidental DNA does not prove anything.

 

[platonov]

'issues more complex than telling the time'

I did click on it. It was a post by Rose Montague, which didn't seem to support your position at all. And if you insist on providing links that only display single posts instead of linking to the post in the context of the thread, then it's likely I will only read the single post.
If you can't say "there's good evidence to support the time of the meal being 7pm" but would rather post five times that amount of text being cryptic and obfuscatory, that's your problem not mine.

And I have absolutely zero idea what you mean by the PFLP-GC/IRA analogy. You could try not talking in riddles, and see if it improves your credibility.

Rolfe.

Click on the top right hand corner - takes you to the thread ; thought everyone knew that

And - It also contains a quoted post of mine. [did you really not spot that ??]


Its neither your problem nor mine and our opinions (and those of Rose Montague or others) carry no weight in the courtroom.

However - the fact that the defence experts accept and seem to go for a possible meal start time as late as 7pm is (one of) the salient point which deals with your original post I replied to here.
Note : 'here' is also a link.

It seems we have finally got there.

But given the torturous path taken and the fact I had given you this info via link weeks ago on the CT thread and in clearly visible posts addressed to other posters you will hopefully understand my (and others) reluctance to repeatedly engage in substantive arguments on issues more complex than telling the time.

ps If you don't like my 'riddles' the later shoehorning in of IRA to get "ETA My PFLP-GC / IRA" probably wasn't appreciated either

 

[spartacus]

Well, in that case I'll get back to my 3,000 pages of court transcript (handily in the original English), other assorted official legal pronouncements, reports of expert witnesses who have had access to individual witness statements, and dozens of jpegs of court productions.

But if we're all in "who is to say" territory, I'm completely baffled as to how anyone can declare a personal conviction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It's nothing more than argument from authority.

Rolfe.

I am also a physician and have read the original report. The meal was at about 6 pm and there were 500 ml in the stomach and nothing in the duodenum and I agree that time of death would have been before 10 pm. I can also add that there was some hand waving by the experts for the prosecution in the original report about factors that might influence emptying time like stress, etc., that were used by the judge to come up with the TOD of 11:30 but this reasoning is not acceptable by the medical community.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm starting to think the number of innocent people in jail is very large. Why? Because the number of people proven innocent because of DNA evidence is a relatively high percentage of the small number that have DNA evidence that could prove innocence. What percentage of all crimes had semen found at the scene?

The same ratio of innocent people found at scenes where semen was found to the total number of crimes where semen was found is probably close to the same ratio of innocent to guilty throughout the system.

Are you talking old cases where they have gone back and retested? It could be that a disproportionately high number of people who don't think it's their semen ask for it to be tested.

Why? Because incidental DNA does not prove anything.

OK. Now I don't understand. You are talking about cases where semen was found. DNA was tested and found to match somebody who was then convicted. You claim that a high number of such people are innocent? Evidence please?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

we actually have quite a bit of information

Absolutely. The hated Steffanoni who knows nothing about forensics and whose arguments have all been shown to be false testified for 3 days I think. How many paragraphs do we have of her testimony?

shuttlt,
We have the Massei summary, and we have news articles written by reporters who covered the trial. Some of them lean toward guilt and others toward innocence. In addition, we can view films of her and her colleagues collecting samples. With respect to the DNA profiling, we have the elecropherograms themselves. For example it is obvious that Meredith's profile on the knife falls into the low template number range of DNA profiling just by looking at it. It is also fairly obvious that there are multiple contributors to the bra clasp. BTW, I don't hate Stefanoni personally; I just think that she does not do her work in an objective way.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,
We have the Massei summary, and we have news articles written by reporters who covered the trial. Some of them lean toward guilt and others toward innocence. In addition, we can view films of her and her colleagues collecting samples. With respect to the DNA profiling, we have the elecropherograms themselves. For example it is obvious that Meredith's profile on the knife falls into the low template number range of DNA profiling just by looking at it. It is also fairly obvious that there are multiple contributors to the bra clasp. BTW, I don't hate Stefanoni personally; I just think that she does not do her work in an objective way.

I know what we have. I'd feel more comfortable about what view to take of her if I could see transcript of her being cross-examined on her evidence collection techniques and so on. I want to see her words, not Frank or, anybody else's, few paragraphs telling me what was said over the course of a day and whether it was convincing.

 

[Kaosium]

Not as mod:

I think it very likely that the appeals will fail.

This opinion has not, and will not, affect any moderation I have done or will do in this thread.

Thank you for posting that.

With no disrespect intended, neither now nor in the future--I'm simply interested in the information--could you also post the moment you realize they'll win the appeal, or the case will soon be dismissed?

 

[Kaosium]

I know what we have. I'd feel more comfortable about what view to take of her if I could see transcript of her being cross-examined on her evidence collection techniques and so on. I want to see her words, not Frank or, anybody else's, few paragraphs telling me what was said over the course of a day and whether it was convincing.

I would dearly like that information as well. However what do you think she could say that would mitigate ever proposing the knife was used in the murder, just to use one example of many?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rep. 164

I know what we have. I'd feel more comfortable about what view to take of her if I could see transcript of her being cross-examined on her evidence collection techniques and so on. I want to see her words, not Frank or, anybody else's, few paragraphs telling me what was said over the course of a day and whether it was convincing.

Why do you need her words when you can watch a video of her and her team? Why do you need a transcript when you have her actions with respect to item 164? This was apparently blood from Meredith's bedroom, but it was not tested further for DNA because of a negative preliminary quantification result.