Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

So why did you ignore my post 828 where I essentially agreed with you?

Stopped reading at cow pies.

 

[Grinder]

Except that it isn't a footprint, as someone on this thread has pointed out.

Are you suggesting that the meaning of footprint is really toe prints with ridges?

I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint.

For DF - I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint

 

[Bill Williams]

I appreciate this and I should have used claimed as well, but when someone said the only evidence was the clasp they didn't use claimed and of course it wasn't any better than the other evidence. Oops claimed.

The footprint would be more damning than the bra if valid. The footprint is not a match in my opinion and should have been put in a "lineup" of other reference prints for the experts AND the judges to compare. That print doesn't NEED to be either Raf or Rudi it could be Koko or someone he brought or someone else. Regardless, it shouldn't have made to fit one or the other.

I think while the phone being turned off means nothing or very little, it seems more likely than the other claimed evidence to be true.

I've tried to get those here to see that the other claimed evidence is just as much evidence; some weaker, some stronger, as the bra clasp. When a PIP says the only evidence against Raf was collected 46 days later, it opens up to the PGP an unimpeded path to pointing out that the PIP are liars.

Can you agree that the bra clasp is the "star" item of evidence with the pro guilt crowd?.

Grinder makes an important point here. Given that the presumed semen stain was never tested given that three extra, non-identified Y-haplotypes were found on the bra-clasp...

.... the one thing PLE never ruled out was more participants. It is clear that one and only one person attacked Meredith in the confines of her room....

.... but limiting the bathmat track to either Raffaele or Guede, hints at what was wrong with the investigation. Myopia. Grinder is correct that PLE and the courts erred in MAKING it fit one or the other. It more than likely is un'identifiable, but there is also the chance that it's outline is a match from someone potentially known.

Re: the "star" bit of evidence for the PGP. The PGP have also relied heavily on "all the other evidence", even when (esp. for Raffaele) there is no other evidence at all. Same is true with Knox, but that's a different set of non-existent evidence!

The point, though, about the PGP is the way they mischaracterize the bra clasp. The completely exaggerate it, Harry Rag is fond of putting it this way: "The abundant DNA evidence against them."

That shows a complete lack of understanding, probably intentional, of the precarious state of even that evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you suggesting that the meaning of footprint is really toe prints with ridges?

I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint.

For DF - I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint

The vast majority of people in the USA don't believe in dinosaurs. I would think that at this level, we should at least be using the terminology of the professionals who examined the evidence. Prof. Vinci believes that the difference between a footprint and a foottrack is all the difference in the world for ID'ing killers at court.

 

[Desert Fox]

Re: the "star" bit of evidence for the PGP. The PGP have also relied heavily on "all the other evidence", even when (esp. for Raffaele) there is no other evidence at all. Same is true with Knox, but that's a different set of non-existent evidence!

I guess this is kind of what I am arguing here. . . . . The evidence here is basically all excrement [And not Guede's in the toilet]
It is throwing all this garbage meaningless evidence and calling it "all the other evidence."

The problem of course is that there are plenty of jury cases where the defendant is convicted on what is basically garbage evidence. It makes me weep at the justice system worldwide.

 

[Grinder]

The vast majority of people in the USA don't believe in dinosaurs. I would think that at this level, we should at least be using the terminology of the professionals who examined the evidence. Prof. Vinci believes that the difference between a footprint and a foottrack is all the difference in the world for ID'ing killers at court.

Stop being pedantic! How I wish the online betting parlor existed because the meaning of footprint is clear and what I'm saying is that the footprint doesn't match either Rudi or Raf. Ask twenty people what they call what is left behind on the cement by a pool when leaving the pool with wet feet.

I give you 10 to 1 that over 90% would call it a footprint not a foot track.

If the footprint left behind was in blood and had the precision of a reference print it would be judged great evidence by most all people in the world.

Please provide a cite on the dinosaurs. My data says that non-religious people by vast numbers do understand.

God made the dinosaurs, along with all other animals and humans, less than 10 000 years ago.
true - 35%
true - 53%

Dinosaurs lived at the same time as people.
true -40%
false- 48%

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

It would seem that the vast majority believe dinosaurs existed even if they are off on when and how they came about. Hint: God didn't create them.

What does believe in dinosaurs mean? That they exist today? Do we need to check with some forensic expert?

 

[Desert Fox]

What does believe in dinosaurs mean? That they exist today? Do we need to check with some forensic expert?

Well, I just saw a dinosaur out my door

 

[Bill Williams]

Stop being pedantic! How I wish the online betting parlor existed because the meaning of footprint is clear and what I'm saying is that the footprint doesn't match either Rudi or Raf. Ask twenty people what they call what is left behind on the cement by a pool when leaving the pool with wet feet.

I give you 10 to 1 that over 90% would call it a footprint not a foot track.

If the footprint left behind was in blood and had the precision of a reference print it would be judged great evidence by most all people in the world.

Please provide a cite on the dinosaurs. My data says that non-religious people by vast numbers do understand.

God made the dinosaurs, along with all other animals and humans, less than 10 000 years ago.
true - 35%
true - 53%

Dinosaurs lived at the same time as people.
true -40%
false- 48%

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

It would seem that the vast majority believe dinosaurs existed even if they are off on when and how they came about. Hint: God didn't create them.

What does believe in dinosaurs mean? That they exist today? Do we need to check with some forensic expert?

I don't mean to, really, but there's a silly-button I keep inadvertently pushing in you.

Read Massei p. 376. I posted it upthread.

For them that know such things footprint and foottrack are (forensicly) different animals. What is on the mat is a foottrack, and in no way, shape or form in any meaningful sense a footprint.

Good luck.

 

[anglolawyer]

How did we get on to dinosaurs?

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess this is kind of what I am arguing here. . . . . The evidence here is basically all excrement [And not Guede's in the toilet]
It is throwing all this garbage meaningless evidence and calling it "all the other evidence."

The problem of course is that there are plenty of jury cases where the defendant is convicted on what is basically garbage evidence. It makes me weep at the justice system worldwide.

The David Thorne case, on the face of it, is even shallower than this one.

When his wife was bludgeoned to death he had an iron-clad alibi. (Grinder: that means he didn't do it.)

So the cops rounded up an 18 year-old developmentally challenged kid, to whom Thorne once fronted $300 to buy a car.

The cops got this kid to confess to the crime, and the $300 was the payment, apparently, from Thorne - so Thorne was charged with ordering the "hit".

The kid knew nothing about the details fo the crime, and later recanted (when outside of police control) that he'd either done it or been paid by Thorne to do it.

Apparently on the strength of this, both are in jail for life.

Given the precedent, why do guilters even need "all the other evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

How did we get on to dinosaurs?

Was my fault. I was going for laughs. I could hear the thud all the way up here! (In the business this is known as a "rough room", and Grinder is in the front row!)

 

[anglolawyer]

Was my fault. I was going for laughs. I could hear the thud all the way up here! (In the business this is known as a "rough room", and Grinder is in the front row!)

What business?

 

[Bill Williams]

What business?

"Stand-up". Either in a comedy club or in other less known venues that I'm more familiar with.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Are you suggesting that the meaning of footprint is really toe prints with ridges?

I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint.

For DF - I think that for the vast majority of people the shape of the foot and location of toes is a footprint

Perhaps there are two meanings of footprint. One is the common usage of the term, where one might speak of footprints in the sand. The other is the forensic usage of the term, where things like ridges and exact sizes are important. My point might be a little clearer if I said that I would not take the bathmat image as evidence against anyone, including Rudy Guede.

 

[carbonjam72]

Signs of dinosaurs

Well, I just saw a dinosaur out my door

Did he/she leave any foot prints or tracks?

 

[Grinder]

Well, I just saw a dinosaur out my door

oh I thought you meant your laptop

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps there are two meanings of footprint. One is the common usage of the term, where one might speak of footprints in the sand. The other is the forensic usage of the term, where things like ridges and exact sizes are important. My point might be a little clearer if I said that I would not take the bathmat image as evidence against anyone, including Rudy Guede.

Re: the image. That was another point Prof. Vinci made. It is unrevealing to study the image, as in a photograph. The nature of the pliant material made it necessary to examine the mat directly.

Massei has it all there in his motivations. He then proceed s to ignore it. But at least he's infinitely preferable to Nencini which is currently the coin of the realm on the case.

That's how screwed up this has become. In contrast Machiavelli calls Nencini an improvement over Massei.

Clot.

 

[Desert Fox]

Did he/she leave any foot prints or tracks?

I can probably get a picture of one with my cell phone if that woudl help?
Of note, I a Cladist

 

[carbonjam72]

All evidence matters.

Anglo, I cut off much of the quote because it is distracting.
You have to look at each piece of evidence to see if it does have value.
I am not arguing that.

Using Gilroy, let us say that he has a cell phone and the tracking shows the phone at his flat. Let us say that he got a call but did not answer his phone. I do not really call that evidence of guilt. It is neutral.

Most of the evidence presented against Raff is of a similar nature.
Working from memory here
1. We have the phones being off, neutral.
2. We have bloody footprints that could be anybody, not really even evidence of anything.3. Knife with Meredeth's DNA - that does have to be explained but in this case explained easily by contamination.
4. Writing to himself trying to explain the knife - Idle speculation trying to explain inexplicable, probably should not be allowed in court. Sad things is that kind of evidence that actually damns many defendants when they had nothing to do with the crime. Ran into a case where an ex-girlfriend asks her former boyfriend why her murdered somebody. She may have manipulated the phone so his answer could not be heard but the jury probably took his apparent non answer as an admission of guilt. This is an item I don't have a good answer how to treat.

Just want to weigh in on the half bare foot "track" in blood on the bath mat.

It is direct evidence of the "tracker's" presence at the time that Meredith's blood was wet, meaning the person was there at the time of death, in order to get Meredith's wet blood on their bare foot. (For example, from a shoe soaked in blood).

It's highly incriminating as to some level of involvement, up to and including having actually committed the murder.

The fact that its definitive attribution is less than certain makes it no less a physical artifact relating closely to the time and location of the crime.
In the absence of shoe prints of more than one person, the logical attribution of the bare half-track (colloquially 'print'), would have to be to the person who wore the shoes making the contemporaneous shoe prints in blood.

If the bare half track/print physically fits the shoes that made the bloody shoe prints, then to hypothesize the presence of a second person at the time the prints were made, is no more supported than the supposition of a second knife, or the presence of multiple attackers. There is no evidence for any of these conjectures.
Moreover, the absence of any other's prints, tracks, finger prints, palm prints, DNA, etc, all provide positive evidence that no one else was there, other than Rudy Guede.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps there are two meanings of footprint. One is the common usage of the term, where one might speak of footprints in the sand. The other is the forensic usage of the term, where things like ridges and exact sizes are important. My point might be a little clearer if I said that I would not take the bathmat image as evidence against anyone, including Rudy Guede.

Of course not. The footprint on the bathmat at best is compatible with both Rudi and Raf.

This is a little like using touch DNA instead of LCN or whatever is the proper term. Touch DNA is easier for people to get quickly.

No one in any common parlance uses foot-track unless they are in the North Canadian wilderness and think this is a tuxedo: