Uh no, I was bemused by your bizarre choice of a partner for me that only constitutes 10% of the population, instead of the 90% scenario any normal person would choose for an example.
This was a contrivance on your part, presumably designed as an insult because you yourself would be insulted if someone called you gay.
Thanks again for unmasking yourself so publicly as a bigot, though. The rest of your post is a clearly risible effort to extract yourself from the corner you've painted yourself in, by attempting to portray yourself as empathetic towards gay people. You should just give up at this point and cut your losses.
Oh, and your new example is terrible. You cannot prove that the employee is innocent (which is one reason why most countries assume innocence until proven otherwise), you can only prove his guilt by unearthing evidence. (There's a parallel here with Popper's Falsifiability). Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
And finally (I hope), I'm not interested in your silly scenarios.
Actually I wouldn't be insulted if someone called me gay as I don't consider it anything to be ashamed of. If someone called me that I would politely correct them and move on. If you took my original post as implying that you were gay you could have politely said "I'm actually straight, not gay, but here is my opinion on what you said:" Anyway, again, I'm sorry you were offended by my example. I didn't mean it like that.
As to your reply to my analogy, my question wasn't whether you could prove his innocence. My question was whether not finding any evidence after looking would cause you to update your prior assumption as to the likelihood of his guilt.
To just pick some numbers out of a hat - you originally believe based on your hunch that there is a 50% chance he is stealing. After you follow him for a month and don't find anything is your estimated probability of his stealing still 50% or more or less? I accept that it won't be 0% (ie., failure to find any evidence is not absolute proof that he is not stealing), but if you are a rationalist, it WILL BE lower than the 50% you started with. If you can't see this I suggest reading up on Bayesian probability.
Oh, so two trials into the case is too early to have expected the raw data files to be handed over? It's a matter of course (as cited earlier) that they should be handed over to the defense without even having to ask for them. And by the time the appeal is happening is more than enough time to expect them by.
Yes, Stefanoni eventually agreed to hand them over only if she had oversight on how the data was examined, haha. You might do well to ask yourself why. By that point, Conti & Vecchiotti had already shown how poor the DNA work was. She never did hand them over.
If only you stopped conflating your opinion with what the court should have established, and what the court actually established.
Actually I wouldn't be insulted if someone called me gay as I don't consider it anything to be ashamed of. If someone called me that I would politely correct them and move on. If you took my original post as implying that you were gay you could have politely said "I'm actually straight, not gay, but here is my opinion on what you said:" Anyway, again, I'm sorry you were offended by my example. I didn't mean it like that.
As to your reply to my analogy, my question wasn't whether you could prove his innocence. My question was whether not finding any evidence after looking would cause you to update your prior assumption as to the likelihood of his guilt.
To just pick some numbers out of a hat - you originally believe based on your hunch that there is a 50% chance he is stealing. After you follow him for a month and don't find anything is your estimated probability of his stealing still 50% or more or less? I accept that it won't be 0% (ie., failure to find any evidence is not absolute proof that he is not stealing), but if you are a rationalist, it WILL BE lower than the 50% you started with. If you can't see this I suggest reading up on Bayesian probability.
^^Not a bigot.
I've shown you cases where guilty killers who confessed with one doing so after engaging in innocence fraud for 10 years, murdered their victims without leaving biological traces of themselves at either the crime scene or indeed the murder room, making your homophobic tinged stupidity pretty moot.
It's a matter of course in the US (as cited earlier) that they should be handed over to the defense during pre-trial without even having to ask for them, and that's going back to at least 2007, probably even earlier (source: ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence published 2007). That's a full two years before the first trial. So to say it wasn't standard practice in the US at that time is wrong.
There's what the ABA wants and there's what actually happens. It took a while. Incidentally, asking your fellow ISF groupies, as you just did, isn't a specially smart move because they're idiots, and Chris Halkides -- who has previously posted US research papers showing that disclosure was not, in fact, the norm at that time (mind you, he doesn't even read half the stuff he links to, which is how he ended up linking to a neo-Nazi Holocaust-denial site one time) -- doesn't post there any more.
Quote:
Yes, Stefanoni eventually agreed to hand them over only if she had oversight on how the data was examined, haha. You might do well to ask yourself why. By that point, Conti & Vecchiotti had already shown how poor the DNA work was. She never did hand them over.
The court didn't tell her to. As has already been explained to you, and as you're pretending not to have heard.
There's what the ABA wants and there's what actually happens. It took a while. Incidentally, asking your fellow ISF groupies, as you just did, isn't a specially smart move because they're idiots, and Chris Halkides -- who has previously posted US research papers showing that disclosure was not, in fact, the norm at that time (mind you, he doesn't even read half the stuff he links to, which is how he ended up linking to a neo-Nazi Holocaust-denial site one time) -- doesn't post there any more.
The court didn't tell her to. As has already been explained to you, and as you're pretending not to have heard.
You shouldn't call people who are on your side, like Yummi and Vixen, idiots.
Funny you should mention Chris Halkides, and appealing to his authority (as pro-guilt people love to do), he's forgotten more about DNA than you'll ever know. He's still active on other forums, posting just as recently as a couple of days ago. If I had to appeal to an authority, I take his expertise over yours.
And as you pretend not to hear, she did not hand them over (which is Corpus Vile's claim). It seems you're actually backing my stance by saying that the court didn't tell her to hand them over (implying that she therefore didn't because she wasn't ordered to).
I have no idea if you're gay, or even whether you are male or female. I was making an analogy based on sexual jealousy, which I don't believe is limited to any particular gender or sexual orientation.
If it makes a difference to you, flip the genders in my last post and answer the question.
I think the really insulting thing about your analogy was its pervasive stupidity.
Actually I wouldn't be insulted if someone called me gay as I don't consider it anything to be ashamed of. If someone called me that I would politely correct them and move on.
So, if I called you gay, would you correct me and then move on out of this forum?
The sidereal perspective has its practical uses, such as aiming telescopes, but the sidereal perspective also confuses many people since it doesn't reflect reality.
I fully realize that I’m bucking a traditional viewpoint of astronomy (as Nikola Tesla did before me), but we’re supposed to be SKEPTICS here who can rationally look at the evidence.
Ken elevates himself to the level of a modern-day Nikola Tesla.
Of course (unlike Nikola Tesla), Ken Dine was suspended from the JREF forums:
Quote:
Ken Dine
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 443
You shouldn't call people who are on your side, like Yummi and Vixen, idiots.
Funny you should mention Chris Halkides, and appealing to his authority (as pro-guilt people love to do), he's forgotten more about DNA than you'll ever know. He's still active on other forums, posting just as recently as a couple of days ago. If I had to appeal to an authority, I take his expertise over yours.
And as you pretend not to hear, she did not hand them over (which is Corpus Vile's claim). It seems you're actually backing my stance by saying that the court didn't tell her to hand them over (implying that she therefore didn't because she wasn't ordered to).
The edfs and raw edfs were covered itt ages ago. I simply wasn't entertaining your rinse repeat routine or resurrection of long covered issues.
My question to Doug who claims the defence proved that Stefanoni lied was, did the court accept as judicial truth that she lied. Neither he nor you will answer this as you know that the court did not.
You being utterly convinced that Stefi lied doesn't equate to the court accepting it and doesn't equate to established fact.
You're simply too thick to realise this.
Halkides is a chemistry teacher. His expertise is not in DNA. He once tried to claim to me that tertiary touch DNA was a proven reality and then gave me a bunch of links to cases that involved secondary transfer.
But your appeal to authority is noted.
Last edited by corpus vile; 09-24-2015 at 01:34 AM.
Take away all of the DNA evidence against Guede and he'd still have been convicted genius.
As would the other two in any normal western court as was also covered itt.
Is it a matter of judicial truth and court accepted fact that Stefi lied Doug?
As would the other two in any normal western court as was also covered itt.
Is it a matter of judicial truth and court accepted fact that Stefi lied Doug?
lol, you really are that deluded. It's fascinating to watch you morph from one poorly reasoned line of thought to the next.
As far as the judicial truth thing that you're hiding behind rather than meeting the argument head on, I'd say it's at least unrefuted in the Massei report that what she said did not match the documentation. You would probably say she was mistaken, but there are additional considerations that indicate she wasn't. He mentions it but then does some fancy handwaving saying Stefanoni said contamination is impossible and she isn't biased and that was good enough for him. Pretty standard stuff in Italy apparently.
So I'm not sure why you refuse to answer the question? Why did she say hundreds of picograms when that was impossible based on her own notes? What say you moran?
The reasoning I've seen on some of these topics from the SC is abhorrent. For instance, if you watch the way the crime scene techs collected the sink samples for instance, you would be shocked if they did *not* find mixed DNA from the people who used that sink. They're simply wrong but they've given the guilters some nice lines to hide behind. Unfortunately for you if you dare to try to support their logic you'll lose....again.
Quote:
The supreme court bases the acquittal precisely on claimed police and prosecutorial errors. As you know.
I could have worded what I said better and I still haven't read their entire report.
lol, you really are that deluded. It's fascinating to watch you morph from one poorly reasoned line of thought to the next.
As far as the judicial truth thing that you're hiding behind rather than meeting the argument head on, I'd say it's at least unrefuted in the Massei report that what she said did not match the documentation. You would probably say she was mistaken, but there are additional considerations that indicate she wasn't. He mentions it but then does some fancy handwaving saying Stefanoni said contamination is impossible and she isn't biased and that was good enough for him. Pretty standard stuff in Italy apparently.
So I'm not sure why you refuse to answer the question? Why did she say hundreds of picograms when that was impossible based on her own notes? What say you moran?
So what you're saying is that it isn't a matter of judicial truth and court established fact that the defence proved that Stefanoni lied, it's just your really fervent opinion that the court should have accepted that Stefanoni lied and that your fervent belief and personal opinion becomes Defence "proof" for you, proof proven in a court of law which said court accepted as proof.
Just as your fervent belief that they totally woulda found Knife boy's DNA elsewhere if only they'd looked hard enough, became an objective case for contamination.
Just as your fervent belief and personal opinion that Defence arguments should constitute as evidence then objectively constitutes as evidence.
Just as I pointed out from the start of our long stonewalled exchange, which was basically the equivalent of this:
Your dishonest behaviour was called out long before I ever posted itt and you're still engaging in the same dishonest behaviour. Nothing changes with you.
