Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

PDiGirolamo,

I have a very passing familiarity with Dr. Vecchiotti's work, but what I can say is that she contributes to the scientific literature in her field. I found seven publications without trying all that hard. For Mr. Maresca to imply that Dr. Stefanoni (whose publication record is scant at best) is more qualified is astonishing.

It's also worth observing that Vecchiotti and Conti were observed closely by consultants for the parties. The prosecution's consultant (I forget his name) is apparently a very well regarded forensic scientist (who IIRC may have taught Vecchiotti). You would think a fuss would have been raised if Conti and Vecchiotti's work was in any way substandard, especially with such "categorical", "drastic" (Maresca's words) claims being made.

 

[Paninaro]

...

Yet surely since those Italian Officials so slurred here today....

Are not most here today doing exactly what most here spent so many electrons saying how wrong the ILE were in doing same ???

I'm ashamed of myself. I'm willing to give up my real name and go to Perugia and face my well deserved Calunnia charges for calling Mignini, the Perugia police, Giobbi, Massei and his clowns a.k.a judges and Patrizia Stefanoni frauds who has carried out a miscarriage of justice, keeping two innocent people in jail for three and a half years on false and misinterpreted evidence.

There is an enormous difference when the state uses all of its powers to convict two individuals of murder, compared to individuals on a message board questioning the actions, honesty and competence of the officials of the same state. We should be allowed to do so in the name of truth and free speech.

It's a matter of proportionality.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

credibility

Nobody will remember. It doesn't matter whether he was on the right side for the right reasons, the wrong reasons or no reasons at all. So long as they get off, he should be able to ride a long way on this.

shuttlt,

I think that this will rightfully boost his credibility, and I hope he can cover other cases, such as the Sarah Scazzi murder.

katy_did,

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the arch-idiots ("vicious sex killer", anyone?) is actually claiming that since Greg Hampikian and Chris Halkides used the same phrase - "international standards" - as Conti & Vecchiotti, this is somehow evidence that the leak is nothing more than a "fictitious FOA plant" with no validity.

Seriously.... you couldn't make it up. Could the reason for the phrase to be repeated possibly actually be that........oooh I dunno......... all of the above people came to the same conclusion: international standards were not properly observed?

There's some serious grasping at straws going on among the pro-guilt idiots at the moment, as they continue their manful (and womanful) but totally idiotic attempts to reconcile today's news with their blind belief in guilt.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: I'm sure that the Associated Press, who apparently received the leak and were the first to report on the contents of the DNA report, would have been easily taken in by a ridiculous fraud perpetrated by the "FOA". I'm sure AP wouldn't have checked their sources carefully before putting this stuff out on the wire. After all, it's not as if they have an international reputation for accuracy and speed to protect, is it?

PPS: I wish I could take the other side of the bet being proposed by one of the idiots that the leak will turn out to be fictitious. I could pay for my next scuba holiday

 

[Poppy1016]

LJ, I believe that AK and RS are not guilty by reasonable doubt. As I stated before no one can be certain of guilt or innocence. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion of this case. Those that believe in guilt have added a lot to the discussion in most cases. It takes varying opinions to properly debate an issue in my opinion. I believe that referring to those that believe in guilt is not polite or constructive. But overall, I am very impressed with your contributions here.

 

[shuttlt]

Personally I think FOA, IIP, DNA experts letter, Steve Moore, etc. put enough pressure on that Hellmann was sent in to be a willing clean the mess up. The allowing of the independent experts to review the DNA was a result. You are right that we will never know how much public pressure played in this. I think it did play a roll though.

It would be a worry if the court produced expert testimony based on what was politically convenient. If they cooked the report once when it suited them to produce evidence of guilt, why not cook it again to produce evidence of innocence? I don't like the idea that this report has been produced to please the public at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, I believe that AK and RS are not guilty by reasonable doubt. As I stated before no one can be certain of guilt or innocence. I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion of this case. Those that believe in guilt have added a lot to the discussion in most cases. It takes varying opinions to properly debate an issue in my opinion. I believe that referring to those that believe in guilt is not polite or constructive. But overall, I am very impressed with your contributions here.

Oh, I only think that a subset of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are idiots. I think that all of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty are wrong, but that's different. If someone believes in their guilt, and can offer decent arguments and objective, open-minded assessments, I can totally respect such a position - even if I disagree with it. But if people resort to utterly illogical and/or totally unintelligent rationalisations in order to shore up their own over-invested position on guilt, then I have absolutely no hesitation in calling such people idiots. Because they are idiots.

ETA for clarity: I don't therefore equate a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt with being an idiot. But I think that some (a significant minority, and by coincidence among the most vocal) of those who believe in their guilt are idiots. (For balance, I happen to think that a couple of the people who have absolute unequivocal belief in Knox's/Sollecito's complete innocence are also idiots, but I have no truck with them)

 

[Draca]

It would be a worry if the court produced expert testimony based on what was politically convenient. If they cooked the report once when it suited them to produce evidence of guilt, why not cook it again to produce evidence of innocence? I don't like the idea that this report has been produced to please the public at all.

I'm not saying that Shutit. I'm saying the opportunity to have a REAL Independent DNA review may have resulted partially from the pressure of internation advocates. I'm not saying anything is being cooked. It made it more difficult for the next judge to just rubberstamp the conviction and be done with it. Steve Moore said in countless interviews "If the DNA is that strong, why won't they let anyone take a look at it?" That was a very valid point. It got an answer. I can not say for sure it wouldn't have turned out that way anyway, but my instinct is that it helped.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It would be a worry if the court produced expert testimony based on what was politically convenient. If they cooked the report once when it suited them to produce evidence of guilt, why not cook it again to produce evidence of innocence? I don't like the idea that this report has been produced to please the public at all.

You'll be able to read the report soon enough and can decide if you think it's cooked.

 

[LondonJohn]

You'll be able to read the report soon enough and can decide if you think it's cooked.

I think the report will prove to be rather "well done".

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

PDiGirolamo,

I have a very passing familiarity with Dr. Vecchiotti's work, but what I can say is that she contributes to the scientific literature in her field. I found seven publications without trying all that hard. For Mr. Maresca to imply that Dr. Stefanoni (whose publication record is scant at best) is more qualified is astonishing.

I agree and, although I have not been in the Kercher's shoes (thankfully), I do not understand them not questioning certain aspects of the evidence and the investigation. Similarly I cannot understand some of the responses to having it questioned, reviewed, and validated or invalidated.

I can only believe there are some legal folks in Perugia who are astonishingly capable of convincing otherwise seemingly intelligent people.

 

[Poppy1016]

I am happy to see these results from the independent experts. If these findings do not result in reasonable doubt, nothing will. I would very much like to claim victory for AK and RS, but I thought the first trial would result in acquittal. With the way things are done in Perugia, I will be nervous until I see AK and RS walk out of prison.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ohh, the latest rationalisation from the idiots is priceless!

The story now is that the whole thing about Stefanoni (and the others) not following internationally-accepted procedures and protocols is irrelevant, according to the idiots.

"Huh? Why dat?!" I hear you (the rational sceptic) cry!

Well, the idiots tell us that Italy doesn't often follow internationally-agreed standards and protocols.

"Huh?!" you (the rational sceptic) say. "Why not?!"

Well, the idiots' response is that it can be OK for countries like Italy (and presumably also individuals like Stefanoni) to disregard internationally-agreed procedures and protocols - because they believe their own standards and protocols might be better!

"Huh?!" you (the rational sceptic) say. "But if they really are better, why aren't they presented to the international community, with some proof of why they are better? If they are indeed better, they would already have become adopted as the new, improved international standard".

To which the idiots' response is: "......................uhhhhhh....................................."

IDIOTS

 

[snook1]

They're funny idiots.

 

[Justinian2]

I am happy to see these results from the independent experts. If these findings do not result in reasonable doubt, nothing will. I would very much like to claim victory for AK and RS, but I thought the first trial would result in acquittal. With the way things are done in Perugia, I will be nervous until I see AK and RS walk out of prison.

I want to see the Knoxes leave Italy. Then I will be happy.

But Amanda is now fluent in Italian.

Perhaps she can work in the states helping Italians here...

Until Mignini is behind bars, the Knox family is not totally safe.

 

[pilot padron]

Adios Amigos

One of the arch-idiots ("vicious sex killer", anyone?) is actually claiming that since Greg Hampikian and Chris Halkides used the same phrase - "international standards" - as Conti & Vecchiotti, this is somehow evidence that the leak is nothing more than a "fictitious FOA plant" with no validity.
There's some serious grasping at straws going on among the pro-guilt idiots at the moment, as they continue their manful (and womanful) but totally idiotic attempts to reconcile today's news with their blind belief in guilt.

LJ, .... I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion of this case. Those that believe in guilt have added a lot to the discussion in most cases. It takes varying opinions to properly debate an issue in my opinion. I believe that referring to those that believe in guilt is not polite or constructive. But overall, I am very impressed with your contributions here.

Oh, I only think that a subset of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are idiots.... then I have absolutely no hesitation in calling such people idiots. Because they are idiots.
ETA for clarity: I don't therefore equate a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt with being an idiot. But I think that some (a significant minority, and by coincidence among the most vocal) of those who believe in their guilt are idiots.

(bolding by Pilot)

Although I do not share your "being very impressed" with the contributions of the Poster you address this to, I very much do share your argument's well worded gentle admonition to same about the content of his argument's being IMHO constantly borderline impolite, uncivil and rude.

Additionally, egotistically motivated spelling/typo corrections, particularly at the opening of a rebuttal argument (only to opponents) do little other than illustrate a latent inferiority complex sated only by being so deliberately condescendingly aggressive, only toward those who dare argue the other side.

Quite frankly, this is why so many arguing guilt simply reach the enough is enough point here and just walk away from this Forum.
This is much as anyone might choose not to associate with individuals who feel necessary to always discuss or argue things endlessly employing these unsavory hostile slurs..

As a pro guilt poster, I am not now sure if I am a total idiot or as edited later, just a subset idiot.
However since I am one of the very few pro guilt posters remaining, I guess I am therefore 'vocal, and therefore a full fledged idiot.

IMHO,I must conclude that my departed 'fellow idiots' (including Fiona ?) have chosen the correct remedy for this unnecessary, unending and ever so 'un-Randi' abuse here.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Pretty much everybody expected the knife to be thrown out, but I remember guilters mostly expected the bra-clasp to stay.

It's interesting how harsh the experts are about the clasp.

1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs;

3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome;

4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed;

5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item.​

Not only contamination cannot be ruled out but there is no proof that there was anything at all in the first place on that metal hook. They questioned inspection, collection (those two are obvious to anyone who've seen the video and knows about the 6 weeks delay) but also sampling (I guess that takes place in the lab). Finally they conclude that even interpretation of all the results were wrong.

They leave a lot of space for plausible deniability for Stafanoni - it's hard to argue malicious intent when there's so much incompetence in the undertaking

 

[LondonJohn]

[/B]

(bolding by Pilot)

Although I do not share your "being very impressed" with the contributions of the Poster you address this to, I very much do share your argument's well worded gentle admonition to same about the content of his argument's being IMHO constantly borderline impolite, uncivil and rude.

Additionally, egotistically motivated spelling/typo corrections, particularly at the opening of a rebuttal argument (only to opponents) do little other than illustrate a latent inferiority complex sated only by being so deliberately condescendingly aggressive, only toward those who dare argue the other side.

Quite frankly, this is why so many arguing guilt simply reach the enough is enough point here and just walk away from this Forum.This is much as anyone might choose not to associate with individuals who feel necessary to always discuss or argue things endlessly employing these unsavory hostile slurs..

As a pro guilt poster, I am not now sure if I am a total idiot or as edited later, just a subset idiot.
However since I am one of the very few pro guilt posters remaining, I guess I am therefore 'vocal, and therefore a full fledged idiot.
IMHO,I must conclude that my departed 'fellow idiots' have chosen the correct remedy for this unnecessary, unending and ever so 'un-Randi' abuse here.

(highlighting by LondonJohn)

No: I think that most of the pro-guilt posters have left here because they cannot present a coherent argument on a level playing field. Plus, playing the victim is oh-so-appealing, n'est-ce pas?

It's interesting that you come to the conclusion that you are one of the idiots. I couldn't possibly comment either way: it would be terribly impolite

What evidence do you have that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher? OR do you prefer not to discuss the....ya know..... evidence?

ETA: I notice that you carefully edited my posts to suit your own ends. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it also shows your "argument" up for what it is.

For example, here's your carefully-framed quote of mine, from your post above:

Oh, I only think that a subset of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are idiots.... then I have absolutely no hesitation in calling such people idiots. Because they are idiots.

But here's the full quote, including the bit you chose to remove with the ellipsis (bolding by LondonJohn, for emphasis of the redacted part):

Oh, I only think that a subset of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are idiots. I think that all of those who believe Knox and Sollecito to be guilty are wrong, but that's different. If someone believes in their guilt, and can offer decent arguments and objective, open-minded assessments, I can totally respect such a position - even if I disagree with it. But if people resort to utterly illogical and/or totally unintelligent rationalisations in order to shore up their own over-invested position on guilt, then I have absolutely no hesitation in calling such people idiots. Because they are idiots

Interesting difference, huh?

 

[HumanityBlues]

[/B]

(bolding by Pilot)

Although I do not share your "being very impressed" with the contributions of the Poster you address this to, I very much do share your argument's well worded gentle admonition to same about the content of his argument's being IMHO constantly borderline impolite, uncivil and rude.

Additionally, egotistically motivated spelling/typo corrections, particularly at the opening of a rebuttal argument (only to opponents) do little other than illustrate a latent inferiority complex sated only by being so deliberately condescendingly aggressive, only toward those who dare argue the other side.

Quite frankly, this is why so many arguing guilt simply reach the enough is enough point here and just walk away from this Forum.
This is much as anyone might choose not to associate with individuals who feel necessary to always discuss or argue things endlessly employing these unsavory hostile slurs..

As a pro guilt poster, I am not now sure if I am a total idiot or as edited later, just a subset idiot.
However since I am one of the very few pro guilt posters remaining, I guess I am therefore 'vocal, and therefore a full fledged idiot.

IMHO,I must conclude that my departed 'fellow idiots' (including Fiona ?) have chosen the correct remedy for this unnecessary, unending and ever so 'un-Randi' abuse here.

Now is as good a time as any to admit you were wrong and jump ship. No one will fault you for it.