Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Methos]

Grinder,

There might be a comment in these 11 threads that caused me to shake my head in complete bewilderment more than the one I highlighted, but right now I cannot think of one. To take just one example, who are Barbie's 9 experts? To take another, her assertion that there was a slightly positive test for drugs but that the substance could not be identified belongs in the category of statements that are not even wrong.
ETA
I am not sure that she asserted 9 forensic experts in her book (I seem to recall that this was said in response to a question). Her claim does say something about her reporting, however.

The quote ist from the Newsweek article Here's How the Evidence Stacks up for Amanda Knox.

Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.

The "countless" experts are mentioned in judge Massei's report:

Dr. Lalli (Massei pg 116):
He excluded, finally, that the biological data alone could indicate the presence and action of several people against the victim.

Dr. Liviero, consultant appointed by the Public Minister (Massei pg 119):
As for the dynamic of the homicide, with particular reference to whether the action was performed by one or more persons, Dr. Liviero ruled out the existence of scientific elements that would allow us to formulate a response to this question.
Professor Bacci, consultant appointed by the Public Prosecutor (Massei pg 122):He indicated that the biological data did not allow for a determination of whether the injuries were caused by one person or by several people, claiming they were compatible with both possibilities

Professor Norelli, consultant for the civil party, (Massei pg 127):
All this led to the conclusion that one single person could not have carried out all the harmful actions which had occurred in this case.

Professor Introna, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito (Massei pg 137):
He also stated that the action was that of a single attacker.

Professor Torre, consultant for Amanda Knox (Massei pg 145):
He maintained that " in any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker"

Prof Cingolani, expert appointed by the judge (GIP) (Massei pg 153):
He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner

So of these seven 4 say they can't tell, two say one assailant and one says multiple assailants... hmmm.

 

[Grinder]

The quote ist from the Newsweek article Here's How the Evidence Stacks up for Amanda Knox.


The "countless" experts are mentioned in judge Massei's report:

So of these seven 4 say they can't tell, two say one assailant and one says multiple assailants... hmmm.

Not sure the point but it does seem she used "facts" in her book. I think she is an idiot and that understands most nothing and if one saw her in the CBS Dateline show with Vogt, Pisa and the Italian journalist she came across as an idiot.

She gets mixed blood wrong but didn't find this item herself. I'm not aware of the typical embellishments of the TCN authors.

A good example would Sharon Feinstein's warden interview - she didn't make it up but I don't think she verified it. She wrote the story for hits and one poster here alone made it worth her while.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not sure the point but it does seem she used "facts" in her book. I think she is an idiot and that understands most nothing and if one saw her in the CBS Dateline show with Vogt, Pisa and the Italian journalist she came across as an idiot.

She gets mixed blood wrong but didn't find this item herself. I'm not aware of the typical embellishments of the TCN authors.

A good example would Sharon Feinstein's warden interview - she didn't make it up but I don't think she verified it. She wrote the story for hits and one poster here alone made it worth her while.

Of all the insane zealots who were bonkers from both sides who crashed Feinstein's blog, she called be the least bonkers. I took that to the bank!

 

[Grinder]

Bill no interest in your game of clue but I did go to a wedding at John Henry Brown's house.

You have far more conversations with FOAs everyday, since I've had none.

Anglo was told by CD she got everything from court transcripts but she didn't.

Tesla was stonewalled by Nina.

You have not provided any example of worth. If someone makes an assertion based on a TCN or any sole source it is their job to validate the point not mine to prove it isn't true. If I contacted an author and she/he didn't respond what would that prove? If I got a Nina response of "oh those guilters" what would that prove?

A book should stand on it's own and not required private back channel communication for sourcing. I will take any and all TCN with a grain of salt and base assertions on one mention in one TCN. I won't watch any of these movies and make assertions about the case based on them.

Here's a ditty just for you

go easy on the water.

 

[Grinder]

Of all the insane zealots who were bonkers from both sides who crashed Feinstein's blog, she called be ME the least bonkers. I took that to the bank!

And you are dead broke!

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill no interest in your game of clue but I did go to a wedding at John Henry Brown's house.

You have far more conversations with FOAs everyday, since I've had none.

Anglo was told by CD she got everything from court transcripts but she didn't.

Tesla was stonewalled by Nina.

You have not provided any example of worth. If someone makes an assertion based on a TCN or any sole source it is their job to validate the point not mine to prove it isn't true. If I contacted an author and she/he didn't respond what would that prove? If I got a Nina response of "oh those guilters" what would that prove?

A book should stand on it's own and not required private back channel communication for sourcing. I will take any and all TCN with a grain of salt and base assertions on one mention in one TCN. I won't watch any of these movies and make assertions about the case based on them.

Here's a ditty just for you

go easy on the water.

Well, at least you're consistent. You've been told by three people here that it was worth it to ask questions of readily available people....

..... now it is judged as being "of no worth", which to my reckoning is an admission you've actually read people do this but then slightly shift the topic to its "worth". Ok.

Have it your way.

 

[acbytesla]

The quote ist from the Newsweek article Here's How the Evidence Stacks up for Amanda Knox.


The "countless" experts are mentioned in judge Massei's report:

So of these seven 4 say they can't tell, two say one assailant and one says multiple assailants... hmmm.

Yet somehow, it is insisted that there were multiple attackers. hmmmm

 

[Grinder]

Well, at least you're consistent. You've been told by three people here that it was worth it to ask questions of readily available people....

..... now it is judged as being "of no worth", which to my reckoning is an admission you've actually read people do this but then slightly shift the topic to its "worth". Ok.

Have it your way.

Bill you make no sense. Of course I could email them and get nothing back or something like "I got it from transcripts...gotta run. I have never said that it is impossible to contact them. I've called reporters from the NY Times about coverage of Iraq years ago. The point is that if one uses something like the watch or the dialogue from one source that writes in a genre which allows embellishments and disdains sourcing it is up to the person using the fact or factoid like item to verify it.

There are two points I recall challenging. One the gold watch caper which even if Diaz account is true and accurate doesn't translate into Rudi doing it but there is no more information after Tesla contacted her than before.

Follain's account of how the internal debate went in the police station hasn't been verified at all.

ETA - when I said You have not provided any example of worth it means exactly what it said - please provide data or info or whatever that you received back that was of worth.

To repeat - of course writers can be contacted - so what?

 

[Desert Fox]

Yet somehow, it is insisted that there were multiple attackers. hmmmm

Confirmation bias. . . .Take the one that states multiple attacker and dismiss all others who state one attacker and those who just argue that they don't know.

Is this not only based on the body however not the whole crime scene?
I think the whole crime scene argues for one attacker.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you make no sense. Of course I could email them and get nothing back or something like "I got it from transcripts...gotta run. I have never said that it is impossible to contact them. I've called reporters from the NY Times about coverage of Iraq years ago. The point is that if one uses something like the watch or the dialogue from one source that writes in a genre which allows embellishments and disdains sourcing it is up to the person using the fact or factoid like item to verify it.

There are two points I recall challenging. One the gold watch caper which even if Diaz account is true and accurate doesn't translate into Rudi doing it but there is no more information after Tesla contacted her than before.

Follain's account of how the internal debate went in the police station hasn't been verified at all.

ETA - when I said You have not provided any example of worth it means exactly what it said - please provide data or info or whatever that you received back that was of worth.

To repeat - of course writers can be contacted - so what?

I make no sense, then you outline precisely the sense I meant it.

Of course writers can be contacted. Writers in this case HAVE been contacted with good results. If you don't know the "so what" to that....

The fact is you do not contact anyone, other than to post/joist with posters here. You admit to having no experience in this case of contacting anyone other than the posters to JREF, and have had at least three people report back to you what they have found when they have gone outside of JREF to the source, as intermediary as they are.

This thread has defaulted to: why Grinder thinks his opinion is of worth when he admits to doing no digging and just trying to win arguments on JREF.

 

[Samson]

The quote ist from the Newsweek article Here's How the Evidence Stacks up for Amanda Knox.


The "countless" experts are mentioned in judge Massei's report:

So of these seven 4 say they can't tell, two say one assailant and one says multiple assailants... hmmm.

Here we have it in a nutshell. John Kercher by now has declared an intent to sue for 12 million euros anyone convicted of the crime. Miraculously his legal council finds the one expert to require multiple perpetrators, and thus multiple parties to sue.
Is this causal or accidental?
This may be a deliberate early strategy by Maresca to maximise his chance of very high fees, certainly with the help of the Sollecito family.

 

[Grinder]

I make no sense, then you outline precisely the sense I meant it.

Of course writers can be contacted. Writers in this case HAVE been contacted with good results. If you don't know the "so what" to that....

The fact is you do not contact anyone, other than to post/joist with posters here. You admit to having no experience in this case of contacting anyone other than the posters to JREF, and have had at least three people report back to you what they have found when they have gone outside of JREF to the source, as intermediary as they are.

This thread has defaulted to: why Grinder thinks his opinion is of worth when he admits to doing no digging and just trying to win arguments on JREF.

Bill you win. If someone uses an obscure source for a point that has no other backing it is the job of the skeptic to contact the author and prove that the story is exaggerated, misleading or just plain made up.

It is wonderful that three people have contacted these authors and it have given them some sort of closure.

you can't provide one example of a case where someone doubted something like the examples I've given and the author has provided the sort of cites that a footnoted book would provide.

The only examples given recently here could hardly be used a examples of good results.

Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!​

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you win. If someone uses an obscure source for a point that has no other backing it is the job of the skeptic to contact the author and prove that the story is exaggerated, misleading or just plain made up.

It is wonderful that three people have contacted these authors and it have given them some sort of closure.

you can't provide one example of a case where someone doubted something like the examples I've given and the author has provided the sort of cites that a footnoted book would provide.

The only examples given recently here could hardly be used a examples of good results.

Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!​

No, you win. You gave the better non sequitor bon mot.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed blood does not mean mixed DNA

Methos,

Thank you for a very helpful post. However, my initial comment was unclear and probably misleading (perhaps because I misunderstood something that Grinder had written). IIRC Barbie said that she interviewed dozens of experts when questioned (possibly by Bruce Fisher) about her claim that there was mixed blood of Amanda and Meredith. This claim was picked up on a blog: "Barbie Nadeau recently noted that there were mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Knox’s traces were higher than Meredith’s and according to dozens of forensic experts, this indicates mixed blood." PMF also repeated this claim. I discussed it some time ago here.

BTW the claim that relative (or absolute) peak heights can be used to tell tissue type is no better than claiming that one can determine the age of a tree by counting the number of its leaves.

ETA
At the same time Barbie also claimed that there were multiple attackers on the basis of an unnamed expert, discussed in an earlier continuation thread here. It would be nice if she named the experts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Methos,

Thank you for a very helpful post. However, my initial comment was unclear and probably misleading (perhaps because I misunderstood something that Grinder had written). IIRC Barbie said that she interviewed dozens of experts when questioned (possibly by Bruce Fisher) about her claim that there was mixed blood of Amanda and Meredith. This claim was picked up on a blog: "Barbie Nadeau recently noted that there were mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Knox’s traces were higher than Meredith’s and according to dozens of forensic experts, this indicates mixed blood." PMF also repeated this claim. I discussed it some time ago here.

BTW the claim that relative (or absolute) peak heights can be used to tell tissue type is no better than claiming that one can determine the age of a tree by counting the number of its leaves.

ETA
At the same time Barbie also claimed that there were multiple attackers on the basis of an unnamed expert, discussed in an earlier continuation thread here. It would be nice if she named the experts.

Chris - that is an anonymous blog, which simply parrots the well known guilter talking points.

I clicked through some of the blog entries, and the alleged psychopathology of Knox plays big. I get into trouble repeating it, but the only people who believe in this psychopathology malarky are guilters/haters. Judge Massei was clear, these were otherwise normal kids who made an otherwise inexplicable choice for evil.

It is also disingenuous the number of times the mixed-blood factoid was fudged. "There was five instances of Knox's DNA and/or blood mixed in with Meredith's blood."

If this blog was not done by Barbie Latza Nadeau, anonymously, I will eat my hat.

 

[Samson]

Chris - that is an anonymous blog, which simply parrots the well known guilter talking points.

I clicked through some of the blog entries, and the alleged psychopathology of Knox plays big. I get into trouble repeating it, but the only people who believe in this psychopathology malarky are guilters/haters. Judge Massei was clear, these were otherwise normal kids who made an otherwise inexplicable choice for evil.

It is also disingenuous the number of times the mixed-blood factoid was fudged. "There was five instances of Knox's DNA and/or blood mixed in with Meredith's blood."

If this blog was not done by Barbie Latza Nadeau, anonymously, I will eat my hat.

Bill, the text was written by Machine/Harry Rag. Most of it he has had to stop saying because it is proven untrue. Unfortunately his campagne of disinformation is accelerating with twitters to media worldwide with links to false statements.

 

[Grinder]

Bill, the text was written by Machine/Harry Rag. Most of it he has had to stop saying because it is proven untrue. Unfortunately his campagne of disinformation is accelerating with twitters to media worldwide with links to false statements.

I like it. Champagne of disinformation.

 

[Bill Williams]

I like it. Champagne of disinformation.

Available at selected outlets.

I realize that the content is heavy on Harry Rag/The Machine. But I have seen Barbie Latza Nadeau pass on that sort of stuff. HR/TM has never been shy with his pseudos.

 

[Samson]

I like it. Champagne of disinformation.

I was a campion at spelling and I resent being corrected by spell check.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, the text was written by Machine/Harry Rag. Most of it he has had to stop saying because it is proven untrue. Unfortunately his campagne of disinformation is accelerating with twitters to media worldwide with links to false statements.

The blog is basically an extended ad for TJMK.