Not at all. I'm not qualified to evaluate the evidence. Any argument that can persuade me about a technical topic like digestion would necessarily have to omit anything complex. Moreover, you can give me a set of arguments/evidence that makes sense but misses some other concept entirely. If neither of us knows of the existence of this other set of concepts we'd just delude ourselves into thinking we know what we're talking about.

Let's take an example from physics. Using basic physics mechanic formulas and practical experiments done on Earth I can make a convincing argument that the maximum speed of an object is unbounded. After all I don't think there's anything in day-to-day physics that puts a cap on speed.

It's not until you get into very technical experiments and special relativity that you see how time and speed are related and how there's an absolute limit on the speed of light.

So getting back to digestion - you can educate me about aspects of how digestion works and explain to me why your argument makes sense and show that its all very logical and consistent but there's no way for me to know if you're missing other important considerations. So, in the end, I can either trust you that you've done all the necessary research and have taken everything important into account - or I can trust that some other expert has. My belief is that the experts will much more often be right. The more experts that concur - the higher my belief that they're right and the self-educated person is missing something.

I think your position is rational of course but I think you miss the degree to which experts are deluded as well.

Physics is different - it's a subject ultimately and deeply grounded in mathematics and empirical testing. Not to mention nearly every professional in the field is highly intelligent and intellectually curious. Law is another area which is complex and weeds out people who can't think.

Biologists, chemists, medical examiners, long time judges, psychologists and so on into softer and softer and more statistically based fields get less and less reliable, both because they are naturally less intelligent on average and because there's nothing to weed out the good from the bad and correct erroneous or lazy thinking. It's the latter experts that I don't think have a probability of being correct superior to the determination of a moderately intelligent motivated layman.
Right, but when the experts contradict each other and make the most basic of errors, you know right away that they're not taking into account "important considerations". They're just idiots. This is instantly obvious from C&V for example, or Hellmann. In the digestion testimony, one expert for example took his stomach emptying from the time eating first started at 6pm, while another took it from 8pm, when the last eating ended. They both had the same range (other had different ranges) but their time of death based on stomach contents was off by two hours from this basic error. Such basic errors instantly reduce the probability that they are correct to less than an intelligent layman.

I presented these arguments to you as well as the scientific data, but you still clung to your belief that people who make such errors are still reliable because they are experts and there is some overlap.

The point wasn't really about physics. I just used it as an example of how you can come to erroneous conclusions based on solid reasoning and factually correct information just by not knowing a whole different set of information.

I don't remember the exact argument but I believe the experts were all in approximate agreement. And when we're dealing with snippets of a translated testimony there are a lot of other conclusions you can draw that don't involve them being morons (they're using imprecise terms when speaking to lay people, we don't see their whole testimony so we could be missing context, they used the wrong term by accident, the translation was wrong, etc. etc. etc.).

I know, but the example doesn't apply to normal ranges in medicine, or the fields of psychology or forensics. It's not like there's some complex mathematical argument you need to know.

You are in fact arguing in my favor - given that the forensics experts who testified were generalists, unlikely to know the nuances of digestion that specialists (or a guy with a science degree and internet connection) would know, they're likely to be unreliable.

Anyway I can tell you're not interested in talking about this so thanks for humoring me.

When it comes to digestion the only thing that the experts agreed on is that it is useless. It wasn't a significant part of the testimony.

The purpose of the testimony was to establish time of death and they used multiple methods -- one refused to use digestion at all and the others said it was weak and unreliable.

As such they were not really acting as experts on that subject -- one expert actually contradicts her own statements because they didn't care about this.

The argument Truthsayer is responding to was never made in court. It is an internet argument created by the shills so that they could argue that all the experts were wrong on time of death.

So this isn't a case of Truthsayer vs court experts but Truthsayer vs internet shills.

?

Almost every single argument that you make either lacks a premise or has a conclusion that does not follow logically from the premises.

But there could be complex digestion enzymes at work. Different foods causing different results. Whether the person had high blood pressure. Whatever - I have no idea what factors are actually relevant.

That's fair. I actually don't know the qualifications of the experts.

I'm wholly uninterested in talking about the digestion aspect of the case. I find the philosophical debate about experts and arguments interesting though.

This is fair. I really don't remember a lot of the details about our previous argument about experts and digestion.

I was focused more on my general "reverence for experts" this time.

No. But I see why what you just said is completely ******ed.

The force required to make a print with a wet foot is quite light -- basically contact.

If you have an irregular surface like a foot only certain parts make contact on a hard surface. Basically the parts with the furthest extension.

On a soft surface the force caused by the weight of the individual causes the soft surface to compress but only under the places where force is applied. This turns the surface into an irregular surface and allows contact with parts that normally would be too elevated.

This is pretty basic stuff.

This is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start -- ignores walking, ignores surface tension effects, ignores gravity.

DUCY he doesn't need to hop?

I think you're a special little snowflake is what.

I was just about to put you ignore when you post comic logic fails like this one. Instead I'll explain it to you.

For one, there was washing going on. For two, there is a faint impression of part of the underside on the ink print, so we're talking millimeters if not fractions. For three, if he stepped on the ball of his foot at any point, then it would indeed get it on the underside of his toe. Even the act of stepping out of blood will engage the toes with the floor - it's different to a flat foot into ink, no weight on the foot, flat foot onto paper step. For four, his entire foot was amply covered indicating he either stepped in a full pool of blood or it got covered from washing. For five, the act of walking along with ample blood will move blood to the underside of the toe. For six, put your finger on a the surface of a glass of water and watch how it "sticks". The same thing that causes a meniscus will cover a surface a millimeter away that isn't touching.

Try thinking things through before posting next time, the human brain is remarkable and it only takes a split second to go through all of the above.

The complication you refer to is known as stepping and walking and washing.

The rational position is that there is a very low probability that a foot covered in ample blood from a murder scene and definitely washed wouldn't get it on the underside of his toe before stepping on a bathmat. Even if the probability is 50% that this wouldn't happen, it has no meaningful impact on the analysis.

We don't know what happened. At some point he got ample blood on his foot and he stepped on the bathmat in ample blood. There is also a smaller probable footprint with indistinguishable features also in blood.

1. No, we don't need to do this. It fits without the extra as I will show and is far too big for Guede. In fact that's precisely what the overlay at the link (reproduced below) shows, if you were looking to actually analyze the argument rather than get attention for yourself by posting stupid questions you could answer this yourself.

2. The weight was to the left as he didn't roll fully onto his toes. You can tell this by the total lack of smaller toe prints and the fact that the far right of the metatarsus is absent. (something which you ignore entirely and focus on getting blood on the small underside of the toe, but I guess that's more proof that you're an idiot without any actual curiosity about the case, as if we needed it).

As for the toes, look at these two pics and tell me whose foot is balanced in such a way that it is more likely to leave the prints of the smaller toes?

Guede:

Raf:


You're on ignore as you just waste people's time with stupid questions looking for attention like a 10yo with ADHD. I'll post the presentation of my own overlays tomorrow for everyone else; this is case closed as far as not being Guede's foot while the match with Sollecito is very good.

Thanks again for Jim for getting the PDFs that shills were keeping hidden.

List of Transcripts

Stefanoni -- the prosecution DNA expert / forensics expert

Carlos Torre -- Defence Expert that testified single attacker and not knife

Nauro Paggi -- Phone Records

Riccardo Biacchini -- unknown

Carlo Caltagirore -- defence memory expert

Walter Patomi -- forensic expert

Tagliabracci -- DNA and Medical expert for the defence

Maurio Barboduri -- CCTV and intercepted conversations

Danielle Moscatelli -- Raffaele's interrogation

Anna Donnino -- Amanda's interrogation

Fabio A'Astulte -- police officer

Aida Culantme -- Amanda's interpreter

Orestes Voluino -- cop

Alberto Intino -- head of forensics in Rome

Cantagalli Claudio -- crime scene

Roccii Gioia -- evidence collection

Agatino -- finger print expert

Antonino -- finger prints

Also some technical DNA stuff

C&V's testimony -- likely not complete

The report from the preliminary hearing

Two medical reports one from the defence and one from the victim's expert

The prosecution appeal documents -- odd these were hidden while the defence appeal were everywhere in the public area.

PFunk,

The e-mail is not important but lets review to just show why you are incapable of even simple reasoning.

Agreed facts regarding the e-mail

1) References to the e-mail appear in dozens of respected newspapers.

2) Multiple respected newspapers source her sister as admitting to the existence of the e-mail but explaining that it wasn't true and that Amanda lied to brag / impress her friends back home.

I don't think you dispute either of these but yet you think this doesn't prove the e-mail exists. Do you see why we think you're an idiot?

So you think if a newspaper says Deanna Knox said X unless they use the exact words and put it in quotes they are lying?

Lots of things in this case are known to exist but we don't have them. We know Knox's prison diary is at least 50 pages but we have less then 15. So using your reasoning the other 35 pages don't actually exist?

I haven't looked for anything. I am just trying to understand what you require as proof.

The diary was leaked. Why can I only find 30% of it?

Just so Henry doesn't waste time sourcing for a ******:

a) The Examiner article links to the Times, which is behind a paywall. It is there but you have to pay.
b) I provided a link to The Guardian's article on this, another respected newspaper. It's right there in the post and you totally missed it, instead writing out a tard screed just posting the examiner and claiming that the link to the Times is broken (it isn't, it's behind a paywall). From The Guardian's John Hooper from Perugia:

I was hoping if I ignored you you'd settle down, instead you just decide to rehash pointless arguments and waste other people' time.

I'm fairly sure the sister is wrong -- his name does appear on list.

What is funny is that Raffaele's name is not on the list.

All I've seen is the list with the censored names. At least one news article I read said Raffaele was not on the list.

JFC

Rockslickz, are you arguing that Knox didn't write that email?

No one reads this thread in earnest.

I'm not sure what all they've said but you yourself are wrong about the luminol issue and simply quit the conversation when I brought a study to light that plainly refutes your assertions.

Except it's not well sourced because it only pertains to hypocholorite based cleaners and we know luminol reacts with a lot of other substances.

Truthsayer also quit when his argument didn't hold up to scrutiny. The same source he used to prove his case disproved his theory about the crime.

You also quit responding to the discussion of these transcripts. I'm noticing a pattern.

the one where she claims to have shagged a random person she met on a train