Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

So as far as your recognition that you not to come across well to intelligent people...

Do you read what you type before you post it...."intelligent" person?

 

[RoseMontague]

Unfounded, wildly optimistic expectations such as that must make Ms Bongiorno, that renowned Attorney whose client's stepmother flatters her skills by saying she "has 30 testicles", very happy indeed.

However, most well informed opposing readers might categorize it as little more than 'stirring the pot'.
Even reasonable posters favoring innocence might categorize it as little more than wishful thinking *at this stage*, but none the less probably enjoyed.

Elsewhere, it might even be deemed an unnecessarily incendiary troll like challenge, intended to disrupt not contribute, and become the first step toward that oft well earned here 'thanks for stopping by' citation.

Or it could have been a light bit of caustic humor, but what do I know?

 

[platonov]

Was Sokal right ?

I take it who 'worship at its altar' translates as have read or at least 'scanned' and understood.

But this may explain why 'we' come across so badly relative to normally intelligent people

Since it is otherwise not challenging language, I presume it will already have been understood by most. But for your benefit I'll clarify that is not how it translates.

So as far as your recognition that you not to come across well to intelligent people, I'm afraid it seems there must be some other explanation for that.

New study in Lancet shows Buffoons (or parrots) no match for strawmen

No, the 'this' in my post also related to the thread title. (see above)

Let me try to 'break it down' if I may try out the modern 'vernacular'

You referred to 'us' including me presumably as buffoons or coming across as buffoons

Rolfe (seemingly of a similar view) later deployed not 1 but 2 very common strawmen in one post, used (ironically) the term 'parrots' and contrasted 'us' with 'normally intelligent people' on this thread.

I put the 2 'ideas' together in my response while also alluding not so subtly to actually 'having read or understood the report' (see recent ref's to this trope) and dubious arguments from authority based on claimed medical expertise (the Lancet ref)

Do you see.

Do you get it.

Oh, I give up It appears I just cant pitch this stuff low enough at the right level.

 

[RoseMontague]

I had mentioned one of the grounds in the Mignono/Comodi appeal that got little response. Let's take a look at another one.

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the clean record of the accused

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: a clean record carries weight when an offender is of advanced age; with the offenders here being barely out of the age of minority, a clean record has little or no significance in terms of mitigation

I suppose this makes sense in a way, but only if the courts treat all people of this age in the same manner by not granting mitigation based on a clean record. I don't believe that is the case.

 

[RoseMontague]

One more:

# In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the confirmed absence, besides drug use, of unseemly and disagreeable behaviour harmful to others

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: as above; plus their chosen lifestyle is not totally without a shadow side: Raffaele always carried a knife with him (Knox’s mother raised this and the daughter confirmed it) – hardly a reassuring and usual circumstance; Knox, on her side, was fined $269 as a result of an episode that was not, in fact, able to be ignored: both conducts either having the potentiality, or the likelihood, of harming others. And even if these circumstances have no negative weight, they do place a hurdle in front of the idea of the “strait-laced” behaviour that the Court bases its reasons on.

This is a bit of silliness, in my opinion. A noise ticket can be ignored. There is no claim that Raffaele did something illegal by carrying around these pocket knives that I am aware of.

 

[LondonJohn]

New study in Lancet shows Buffoons (or parrots) no match for strawmen

No, the 'this' in my post also related to the thread title. (see above)

Let me try to 'break it down' if I may try out the modern 'vernacular'

You referred to 'us' including me presumably as buffoons or coming across as buffoons

Rolfe (seemingly of a similar view) later deployed not 1 but 2 very common strawmen in one post, used (ironically) the term 'parrots' and contrasted 'us' with 'normally intelligent people' on this thread.

I put the 2 'ideas' together in my response while also alluding not so subtly to actually 'having read or understood the report' (see recent ref's to this trope) and dubious arguments from authority based on claimed medical expertise (the Lancet ref)

Do you see.

Do you get it.

Oh, I give up It appears I just cant pitch this stuff low enough at the right level.

1) Rolfe was not comparing "you" (adversely or otherwise) with "normally intelligent people" in her post. You have (ironically) created a straw man by claiming this to be the case. Re-read what she actually wrote, and try again.

2) The second irony is that those of us arguing on the medical evidence for ToD are doing the polar opposite of arguing from authority. You either don't know what arguing from authority is, or you are just bandying the term about as a generalised insult.

If I were arguing from authority about the ToD, I would be arguing something like: "I say that Meredith's stomach/intestine contents and the time of her last meal indicate that she died well before 10pm; I am a medical doctor; therefore what I say is correct, and I need no supporting evidence." Instead, there are those of us who freely admit we are not authorities in the field, but that we have researched this area properly and using primary research data, and we have concluded that all the available evidence shows that Meredith died well before 10pm. And incidentally, this view is also supported by people who are authorities to some degree - such as Rolfe, and the pathologist expert witnesses in the first trial (including, in a twist of black humour, the police's own autopsy pathologist).


PS Without wishing to gloat, I am just back from seeing Jerry Seinfeld doing a stand-up show at the O2, having also seen him last night in an intimate and unadvertised set at the Comedy Store

 

[RoseMontague]

And this gem:

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: diligent behaviour in study and towards others, e.g. Sollecito offering a lift to Popovič, Amanda working for Lumumba, even though studying and attending lessons

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: these arguments are so facile that they hardly require commenting on: study success is tied to qualities of intelligence and memory, which the two accused certainly possess, but this is neither here nor there at the ethical level – which is where the mitigation operates. The Court emphasized Sollecito’s availability to help Popovič, to give her a lift to the bus station that night. Yet the same Popovič testified that Raffaele was not exactly happy at the prospect, so much so that he replied “in a cold tone”, and in any case not his normal one. And the fact that Amanda was working for Lumumba is also neutral with respect to the mitigation. Obviously, the accused had the economic need to do so, and that job, while not onerous, provided the opportunity for meeting people and avoiding the routine of study.

Yes, I believe they just accused Amanda of getting a job so she could avoid the routine of study. Am I reading this correctly?

And there is that "cold tone" again. That seems to be Frank's downfall as well.

 

[RoseMontague]

This one is interesting.

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the inexperience and immaturity of the accused, long distance from their families, and their attachment to each other

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: inexperience and immaturity: the calunnia against Lumumba, its continuation during his unjust imprisonment and further calunnia against the Flying Squad during the trial, so opening up another case, – speak to a coldness and determination, and not a docile disposition and inexperience. And on the other hand, the intervention of the respective families never addressed themselves to undoing the initial calunnia against Lumumba even when Knox’s mother received her daughter’s confidences about Patrick’s innocence, and, notwithstanding that, there was no advice, from mother to daughter, to retract that accusation. No positive influence would have come from the presence of the families, at least to judge from the behaviour after the murder. The Court would have had to have considered this in conjunction with the staged burglary and the shared desire of both accused to mislead the investigation.

I'm reading this as the court should deny mitigation based on the fact that Amanda's Mom was not shown to give her the advice she should have. Or not?

 

[RoseMontague]

Last one (I promise):

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the events of that night being merely the accidental confluence of various factors in combination, with “no other plans, without any animosity or rancorous feeling against the victim that could by any means be seen as preparation/predisposition for the crime”

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: in terms of mitigation, the Court spent little time on this, and did so in contradictory ways: if, as the Court affirms, the two accused were totally impassive, as if killing someone their own age was the same as going to the pub, the club, consuming stupefactants, or having sex, or, more simply, just going to sleep, how could this “accidental contingency” be used to lessen the offence? How could it possible to hold, of all the options that presented themselves on that unexpectedly free evening, that the murder and sexual violence against the young English girl be one of them? And if the Court held them to be capable of such coldness, of extreme criminal acts, solely because they had a free evening and the two didn’t know what else to do, this certainly goes to worrying psychology for the pair, because both have been glacial in this case, more so than Rudy who, at least, expressed sadness and grief for the victim.

This one is cold, almost glacial in a way.

 

[platonov]

So much for post titles.

1) Rolfe was not comparing "you" (adversely or otherwise) with "normally intelligent people" in her post. You have (ironically) created a straw man by claiming this to be the case. Re-read what she actually wrote, and try again.

2) The second irony is that those of us arguing on the medical evidence for ToD are doing the polar opposite of arguing from authority. You either don't know what arguing from authority is, or you are just bandying the term about as a generalised insult.

If I were arguing from authority about the ToD, I would be arguing something like: "I say that Meredith's stomach/intestine contents and the time of her last meal indicate that she died well before 10pm; I am a medical doctor; therefore what I say is correct, and I need no supporting evidence." Instead, there are those of us who freely admit we are not authorities in the field, but that we have researched this area properly and using primary research data, and we have concluded that all the available evidence shows that Meredith died well before 10pm. And incidentally, this view is also supported by people who are authorities to some degree - such as Rolfe, and the pathologist expert witnesses in the first trial (including, in a twist of black humour, the police's own autopsy pathologist).


PS Without wishing to gloat, I am just back from seeing Jerry Seinfeld doing a stand-up show at the O2, having also seen him last night in an intimate and unadvertised set at the Comedy Store

The lancet ref didn't apply to you or the other veteran online experts.

& I guess the Sokal ref & smiley in the post title didn't work either

{Repeat last 3 lines of last post}

 

[LondonJohn]

This one is interesting.

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the inexperience and immaturity of the accused, long distance from their families, and their attachment to each other



I'm reading this as the court should deny mitigation based on the fact that Amanda's Mom was not show to give her the advice she should have. Or not?

As far as I'm concerned, the prosecution's risible arguments against mitigation are nothing more than a curiosity (and and indication of the state of mind of the prosecutors, perhaps aided and abetted by the delightful Sig. Maresca). I don't think that the question of mitigation will ever arise in the appeal trial, since it doesn't of course come into play for those who are acquitted....

 

[Alt+F4]

Instead, there are those of us who freely admit we are not authorities in the field, but that we have researched this area properly and using primary research data, and we have concluded that all the available evidence shows that Meredith died well before 10pm.

But you conveniently keep ignoring the fact that Sophie Purton, one of Meredith's British friends (and the last person to see her alive), testified that in regard to Meredith's last meal the women may have finished eating as late as 7:45pm.

She remembered that they had eaten pizza and an apple cake. She did not know when they had finished eating; perhaps an hour before leaving; and she indicated that they had left the house at around 20:45 pm.

Massei Report, page 37.

 

[LondonJohn]

But you conveniently keep ignoring the fact that Sophie Purton, one of Meredith's British friends (and the last person to see her alive), testified that in regard to Meredith's last meal the women may have finished eating as late as 7:45pm.



Massei Report, page 37.

The important time with regard to the lag time of food matter leaving the stomach to the duodenum is the time that the meal started. Not the time that the meal ended. I thought this had been gone over enough times by now.

So before you go around accusing people of "conveniently ignoring" things, maybe you ought to check the sturdiness of the ground below your feet, eh?

 

[platonov]

But you conveniently keep ignoring the fact that Sophie Purton, one of Meredith's British friends (and the last person to see her alive), testified that in regard to Meredith's last meal the women may have finished eating as late as 7:45pm.



Massei Report, page 37.

That is not obviously not irrelevant but doesn't directly speak to the issue of the empty duodenum which (notwithstanding variations generally and apparently in this case complications arising from the autopsy) depends on the final meal start time *


*Hence the frantic repetitive arguments which seek to push it back as early as possible on this thread despite what the defence docs and 'Massei' record.

 

[RoseMontague]

But you conveniently keep ignoring the fact that Sophie Purton, one of Meredith's British friends (and the last person to see her alive), testified that in regard to Meredith's last meal the women may have finished eating as late as 7:45pm.



Massei Report, page 37.

The clock starts at the start of the meal, not the end. Her testimony on that was around 6PM or perhaps earlier.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is not obviously not irrelevant but doesn't directly speak to the issue of the empty duodenum which (with complications in this case) depends partly on the final meal start time.

It depends wholly upon the final meal start time. And in this particular case, it's highlighted further by the fact that recognisable semi-broken-down elements of pizza were found in Meredith's stomach.

I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again: the human stomach is not simply a homogeneous "bag" - it's a complex organ which is capable of performing many complex tasks simultaneously, and it is capable of separating food in different stage of digestion. Food is processed by the stomach in a linear fashion which is related to the time of its ingestion. If a person eats a hamburger at 8pm, then has a piece of chocolate cake at 9pm, the stomach essentially deals with the two elements separately. The hamburger is processed through the stomach, and the arrival of the chocolate cake an hour into the digestion of the hamburger has little or no effect on the passage of the hamburger. In other words, the hamburger will start to transit from the lowest part of the stomach (the pylorus) into the duodenum within around 1-3 hours after its 8pm ingestion, and the chocolate cake will similarly start its transit to the duodenum between around 10pm and midnight.

 

[Alt+F4]

The important time with regard to the lag time of food matter leaving the stomach to the duodenum is the time that the meal started. Not the time that the meal ended. I thought this had been gone over enough times by now.

Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth could not all agree as to what time Meredith started/ended eating (no reason for them to notice that). You have have no idea what time Meredith started eating. It could have been as late as 7:00 pm.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth could not all agree as to what time Meredith started/ended eating (no reason for them to notice that). You have have no idea what time Meredith started eating. It could have been as late as 7:00 pm.

Complete and utter straw man. What's wrong with dealing with your mistake over quoting the end time of the meal? Or are you trying to pretend that you never even made that "argument"....?

 

[babycondor]

New study in Lancet shows Buffoons (or parrots) no match for strawmen.....
Do you see.

Do you get it.

Oh, I give up It appears I just cant pitch this stuff low enough at the right level.

If you want to communicate on an Internet forum, it's best to use simple declarative sentences and vocabulary that a reasonably intelligent 10 year old can understand. And on this forum, it also seems to be generally expected that assertions are backed up with evidence. Obscure metaphors, convoluted references, attempts at avant garde humor, and a condescending or evasive attitude seem to work against one. But what do I know?

 

[RoseMontague]

Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth could not all agree as to what time Meredith started/ended eating (no reason for them to notice that). You have have no idea what time Meredith started eating. It could have been as late as 7:00 pm.

The three quotes are 5:30-6:00PM, 6PM or perhaps earlier, and 6:00PM-6:30PM. There is nothing from the three that indicates a meal start time as late as 7PM. And we do have a good idea that the meal started between 5:30 and 6:30. Since all three of them mention 6PM in their testimony, I believe around 6PM pretty much covers it.