I'm still waiting for just one of them to rationalise why Steffi gift wrapped the mop and walked into the murder room.

As someone who may or may not know a thing or two about sociology, I concur. The echo chamber is a scary place.

Well said. I'm done here soon.

This part I agree with. When I have some time I'll try to extract the posts from this thread and do some basic analysis on it. Should be pretty awesome.

There is no such thing as impossible. That is a shorthand that we use for when something has such a low probability as to not be considered. You should know this. Zero probability is pretty much limited to formal logic and mathematics.

I don't think you know what a fallacy is. You have made a few incorrect claims about arguments being fallacies but that is it. I was expecting a list. The form should be a list of premises followed by the conclusion and why the reasoning is wrong.

No. I said your posting last night and the previous times you posted in this topic are emotional. I'm sorry but that is the way you come across. You come across as a ranting lunatic who has serious emotional issues.

Because as you pointed out it is early morning. You posted that twenty minutes before I was going to dinner and now I am up and was addressing the rest of the posts that don't require reading and absorbing anything to deal with. As I said I will read your source and respond to it when I have time later today or tomorrow. My ability to get to it will be greatly influenced by how often I have to waste time correcting the shills. I might just ignore them and focus on your source since it is likely of greater benefit to address that.

Can you make a list of these intelligent posters -- I see auralex14 and PFUNK and neither are intelligent and both have previous issues with me. So who exactly is seeing things your way because I don't see them. I do see multiple people telling you to calm down and stop with the emotional reactions.

Yes and I pointed out why surviving six days in a laboratory that is following proper cleaning protocols is not the same as surviving six weeks where no one is in the building. Does this really need explaining?

Please give a non-absurd hypothetical example of how Meredith's DNA would be transferred on an item of Amanda's clothing to the sharp end of a knife.

That LCN is far more sensitive has nothing to do with secondary transfer not resulting in non-mixed samples. It just doesn't happen in reality. Further, your argument seems to contradict the point you are trying to make. Because LCN is so sensitive if the DNA was the product of pre-collection contamination then we should have other profiles as well.

Your entire position is based on the assumption that Amanda somehow got Meredith DNA on her clothing but that her clothing did not have Amanda DNA or anyone else's DNA in the same location. Amanda then went over to Raffaele's and rubbed her clothing exactly where the Meredith DNA was onto a knife. You think this is a non-absurd explanation for the DNA but I think most people would disagree.

You keep going on about LCN being super sensitive but you are ignoring that it was Meredith's DNA alone on that knife. Based on your own argument there should be other people's DNA on the knife. Why Meredith and not Filomena? Why Meredith and not any of Raffaele's friends?

Your entire position is based on well there isn't a zero probability so even though the probability is so low that it is not worth considering as an option because it is non-zero you are going to accept it as an explanation.

True. LCN could have brought up more samples but they would have been useless since mixed LCN samples are rarely acceptable as reliable evidence when it comes to identifying individuals in court.

The tone of your question was confrontational so I read it as you asking rhetorically.

I have no idea what negative tests were done. I expect that if there was a problem someone from the defence would have raised an objection to the negative tests. A lack of an objection is sufficient for me to assume that what should have been done was done.

It is simply a statement of fact. If you look at the people who defend Knox that is basically what you have. If you'd like me to make a list of who her main defenders are and why I see them as life-failures I can but that list was made previously in this topic. Also to be clear I am talking about individuals involved with the shill sites more than I am talking about 2p2 members who feel she is innocent although the dichotomy is present there as well but not as markedly.

You're an ass because you rant and rave but fail to actually advance an argument in a proper way. That is rather disappointing because you are better educated than the Fat Tonys and 239s and it would actually be nice to have someone on the other side of this who is competent but your inability to control your emotions disqualifies you. That you are delusional to how you come across is even more disturbing.

First I clearly stated that it was my non-expert opinion and if that is wrong then so be it. The correct response from you would be to say why it is wrong and this is my biggest criticism of you and why I doubt your expertise is as great as you claim. Since you've already said that negative tests are possible I don't really see why you are going on about this.

It isn't a logical fallacy. I even laid out the argument in a formal method.

If A then always B
Not B
------------------
Not A

Sorry.

I noticed you'd fail a logic course but that is about it.

you really don't get it do you haha. it's not about being a 'guilter' or 'not a guilter'. it's about objectively observing a thread for years without any bias whatsoever, and coming to the conclusion that one party does a very good job of citing and backing up their point, and the other doesn't.

I think you're misreading what I wrote, which is understandable. I was only asking you if you thought they were guilty, nothing more than that.

As far as citing and backing up points, you do understand that the main source for citing in this case is a biased report that's essentially a confirmation of the prosecution right? The Massei report does list some of the defense arguments, but it's hardly a complete record. Anyone arguing for guilt is at an inherent advantage because of that. If we had a complete record this would be a very different discussion.

I've only been here two weeks and can't comment on the whole thread as you have done.

I can only tell you that I know the case reasonably well having read all of the online commentary, watched all the documentaries, five books and all of the court documents publicaly available.

You don't know me and I don't know you but I can say Henry is absolutely FOS when it comes to the case. Just in the two weeks I've been here he has made fanciful claims such as Raffaeles dna was found on the body, the cops never bothered to check how she died for 12 hours, that Amanda said the body was found by the cloest, that Amanda knew details of the crime before anyone could, that there wasn'ttwo cars, that there was mixed blood when Massei says there was mixed biological material in a shared bathroom, that Andrew Vogt covered the case of the Guardian, that Steve Moore didn't work for law enforcement. There's dozens of them just in the two weeks I've been here.

I'm sure this thread is full of hundreds of these lies/half truths/myths.... whatever you want to call them.

It'd be a full time job for anyone to try and debunk them all and then when you do, the poster will just repeat them days later as if you'd never proven them wrong.

239 has done an amazing job here just from what I've seen considering he's up against one mega disinfomation troll who thinks he's knows what he's talking about but is clueless and 4 of 5 little cheerleaders who drool over his ever word.

Henry can have his heroin junkie eyewitness and luminol prints which tested negative for blood and all the other little pieces of evidence and argue them till he's blue in the face but it all falls apart on closer inspection which is why they were acquitted in the strongest possible terms and immediately released from custody. You can read why that happened in the Judge Hellmann's motivation report.

Well no.

There are three decisions written by different judges that we have access to in translation (Massei, Giordano, and Hellmann) and one that we have only in Italian (Micheli). Those four decision give us a lot to work with. The only judicial decision that we are missing is the preliminary hearing.

With respect to reports we have Rinaldi and Boemia's reports on the footprints and the defence expert Vinci's powerpoint presentation. We have the C&V review of the DNA. We don't have the coroner's report but it is quoted at such length in the four judicial decisions that we can read most of it.

With respect to testimony -- we have all of Knox's testimony in text, audio, and video form. We have a few other witness testimony including such minor players as Nara Capezzali. For the individuals we don't have a complete record of Umbria24 did an excellent job of covering the story. They have direct quotes of all the relevant testimony for any witness on the day they testified or the following day depending on if the reporter made deadline. This gives us a lot to work with.

Then there is the exhibits -- we have all of Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele's writings, we have their statements to the police, we have the videos of the evidence collection, we have maps of where fingerprints were found, we have crime scene photos, have a real and a altered map of where the footprints were, we have a real and an altered picture of the bathmat footprint, etc.

There is a ****load of information. We basically have all the evidence.

The reason you don't source is because none of the arguments your present are yours and the people who told you the lies never sources because they were lying.

Please quote where I said Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's body.

I never said that.

I said that the body was left covered with the bedspread until 1:15am. That is correct. They did check to see if she was alive but the body remained undisturbed and covered until 12 hours later.

That is factual. Amanda's testimony

She was asked how she knew this and was evasive and could not answer. The body and most of the room was covered by the bedspread. There is no way anyone knew that Meredith had been killed by the closet and moved until much later than Amanda used the word closet.

No. I said the people from the broken down car were interviewed and that they saw nothing. I mistakenly stated that only the tow truck operated testified. That the occupants of the car were interviewed and saw nothing is equivalent to them testifying that they saw nothing. The information they bring to the table is the same regardless if they told the police or if they told the police and testified.

As to the second car I am the one who brought that up. The tow truck operator saw a dark colour car parked at the cottage. Raffaele drives a dark coloured Audi. Dark coloured though covers at least 1/4 of the cars in any city and we have no idea who the car belong to or where the owner was.

I wasn't talking about the bathroom. I was talking about the footprints and I referred to it as mixed DNA with blood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andrea-vogt

His writing speaks for itself. Nobody who reads what he wrote will believe he was actually ever an investigator for the FBI. Now if you want to claim he was muscle for the FBI then certainly. The guy is too dumb to be an agent. Even if we assume he was lying for personal gain someone of average intelligence could do a much better job of lying than his dribble.

We have discussed Hellmann here. The more people are exposed to Hellmann the more they realize Knox is guilty. People are not as stupid as you think they are. The logic is Hellmann is comical and people see that instantly.

I'm curious -- what will your position be when the SCC voids Hellmann?

Swoon

Henry, I'm aware of the sources thanks. It's amusing that you list all of these reports and say we have basically all of the evidence when but a few posts ago you were road raging at how reports are useless without the testimony that goes with them. Again, if we had all of the testimony from the first trial and all of the exhibits it would be a different discussion.

Also, I refuse to ignore that the majority of the detailed sources are biased towards the prosecution. If you look at this case without acknowledging the confirmation bias that existed in the investigation and initial court proceedings, you do the truth a great disservice. I won't do it.

Finally, without the testimony of the experts it's especially difficult to have a discussion with you specifically, because you refuse to entertain any defense arguments as being potentially valid.

You really need to read back through the thread and see what you've claimed.

For the second time, Andrew Vogt is a freelancer. She did not work for The Guardian or cover the case for them. They just picked up an article by her.

This is her website:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/

Btw the owner of the 2nd car outside the cottage was traveling with the broken down car waiting for the tow truck driver. The friend pulled over and parked outside the cottage. The problem with the tow truck driver when he testified is he didn't realise the 2nd car occupant was actually there waiting with the occapants of the car he was called to fix. He assumed they were all one group belonging to the one car and the other car was unrelated.

We do.

Find the day the individual testified.

Go to umbria24 for that day. You'll find the most important parts of the testimony.

Actually just use Google News .it and you'll find multiple sources for the testimony.

Why can I find expert testimony and you can't?

This just proves everyone's point Henry. We've had this discussion before. Do we or do we not have access to all of the testimony for free?

The answer is no. It's also telling that you think a few paragraph subjective blow by blow is an equivalent to the actual record.

ETA: Not to mention, it's all in Italian and you scoff at google translate.

Also, Henry, can you please clarify your argument that six days between tests rules out contamination at the lab? Specifically what days are you talking about and what is your understanding of what tests were done on which days once the knife arrived at the lab.

It seems to me if you're going to hinge your entire argument on this one prosecution argument, you ought to be able to answer these questions. If not you just have an unfounded talking point.

239,

That is complete bull****. The newspapers are not covering what was said but just the most important parts of the actual testimony all just quoted. It is the Cliff's Notes of the testimony. I've been able to source all my testimony so there is no reason you can't.

Further, I've never complained about google translate. I complained about the shill sites intentionally translating documents incorrectly. Yes it sucks that all the primary material is in Italian and that makes it harder but I still nevertheless source my claims. You have no excuse

----------

With respect to the six days argument the testimony has now been posted three times in the last four days. It has been posted probably more than ten times total. For ****s sake stop being such a lazy ass and just find it yourself. Poker Reference posted it again for Matt because he was too lazy to look for it. Look at the posts between 7-9pm and you'll find the sourced transcript of the C&V testimony.

Honestly what on earth are you even talking about at this point. You don't even have a point. My point is that we don't have the complete testimony and having that would change the discussion. And what you posted was not even remotely close to a cliff's notes. It was a blurb. Your position that this was enough to reach an informed opinion is a joke.

First, I don't think this is right. I think you did complain about rough translation. But never mind that what documents tranlsate by shills has been done incorrectly? Be specific. Your claim that the guilters have some sort of high ground in the translation game is pretty dumb.
----------

I'm not looking for the testimony and that testimony does not include the answers to the questions I'm asking. You are saying nothing was tested in the lab for 6 days before the knife DNA was run. I'm asking you to back up your argument here with an actual informed opinion.

I'm asking you what days which tests and procedures on the knife were done. You don't know and I'm calling you out on it. You are taking a prosecution talking point and trying to turn it into proof of something but you don't know the details. Your position is a fraud.

I may have babbled about impartial DNA on the knife, a subject I know nothing about, but I've never said there was no DNA in footprints since I've never commented on that, so you like to talk about people lying here all the time, well this is a lie.

ANYTHING anyone says that opposes your viewpoint they are automatically a "shill" or part of the "Knox PR Machine"....you are a delusional moron with an obsession with this case and Amanda Knox's guilt. You can't even come close to having an objective conversation about this case, and when valid reasonable points come up putting your side in jeopardy you will manipulate it any way you can to smoke screen any possibility you are wrong, and even when you are proven wrong you don't admit and find a way to spin it.

Matt R. FTW
my god, the ******ness of Henry ITT tilts me hard core

Very simply

Everything I have said I can source. I manage to do this besides the issue of language and only having the most important parts of the testimony.

You source nothing.

The guilters as you call them have several members who do translation professionally -- they also include several members who speak both languages. Your side has one individual who speaks both languages and his English is pretty weak.

Anyway do you so quickly forget this for just a few days ago?


----------

The testimony makes this very clear.

For your position to have any merit we would need three things to be true.

1) The prosecutor is lying in open court.

2) Both of the individuals assigned to review the data don't realize that the prosecutor is lying despite having studied and reviewed the material.

3) That nobody for the defence realized that the prosecutor was lying despite being able to quickly verify the claim.

This is an absurd position to take. You would be much better off taking Vecchiotti's position of implying that Stefanoni changed the dates.

Anyway if you want to maintain the absurd position that the prosecutor lied and neither C&V or the defence realized it then be my guess and find the dates of the testing. I'm not going to run around wasting time on every ******ed position you advance -- I did enough of that before I realized you were full of **** and just making crap up.

So you didn't write this post?

It is posed as a question but you are implying this is the truth. Now I corrected you in that the the footprints did contain Meredith's DNA and second that they were blood but if I hadn't then your statement would have left people believing both those claims to be true.

Also you don't have to understand DNA at all for the claim that it was a partial profile vs a complete profile. That is simply a matter of understanding the English language. You correctly reported what you read and you correctly trusted the source because it was from Wiki and had a footnote.

I'm not actually blaming you because normally if you read something on Wiki and it is sourced then it is correct to believe it is true. In this case it was sourced to New Scientist which is a decent periodical. This is just to illustrate how the propaganda machine works. They write a bunch of lies. Then they reference their own lies. Then people like you read those lies and spread them.

Did you or did you not come in here and state multiple (I could likely find greater than six) factually incorrect claims regarding the evidence?

So yes you are part of the PR machine. You might not realize it but by reading those sites and then repeating the lies you are part of the PR campaign.

Think of it as being a computer in a botnet.

lol, right....It's posed as a question because I really didn't know and hence, why I asked it in question form, and I have actually tried to be impartial and have asked you legitimate questions many times....but by all means, spin away.

For the record.....Again, here is what you quoted I said:

Quote:

You came here and said that the luminol footprints didn't have the victim's DNA. Again I had to then prove that they did. Again if I had not proven this you would have spread the lie that they did not contain the victim's DNA.

This is not true obviously as we can all read, but as we can also all see you still find a way to try and manipulate and weasel that I said something close enough, and if not exactly that verbatim, it is what I was implying.

This is one example, but it is everywhere in this thread and apparently how you debate/argue.

You are a ****ing shrub man.

The fact that I have seen you repeatedly be completely and utterly and factually wrong about things (not only in this thread but other topics many many times), and yet still try to manage your way out of it and manipulate while NEVER ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG presents a big problem in wanting to believe 50% of what you say....even if you are very informed with information on it.

This doesn't matter much to me because you basically present yourself as an internet expert on anything you talk about.

First of all the claim that I source nothing is ludicrous. Secondly I even mentioned anything about sourcing in this particular discussion rather I was discussing how incomplete the record is. You've moved the goalposts for no reason. The fact of the matter is that your blurbs are not a replacement for the record and it's dumb to argue otherwise.


How could you possibly know this if you don't read the guilter sites as you claim? And I can instantly prove that you're misinformed. This translation http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/ was done by 4 people at least two I recognize as posters on JREF that aren't guilters. You LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry, they created a table of contents and 100% accurately summarized each section. The actual section on Time of Death was translated almost identically to that of the guilter translation and you hold no high ground in terms of which is better clearly. Again you can't see the forest through the trees here and reveal your bias. You're essentially arguing that the pro-innocence translation is biased even though it says the exact same thing as the guilter translation. Scary.

----------



No, it doesn't and the fact that you can't answer simple questions reveals that you have no idea what the circumstances were surrounding the testing. Again, you're full of it. If the question was simply 6 days had elapsed regarding the run that produced the electropherogram that would not exclude contamination during earlier phases of the analysis and testing. That's what I'm getting at and you have no idea if this was all done on the same day or not. You're clueless.

Which tests were they talking about in the testimony? You have no idea. If you did you'd just say it.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did you'd be able to avoid this obvious distortion of my question and simply put forth the information. And again this proves the point. If we had the transcript we could see what the context is. But to the point the DNA extraction and the actual run that produced the electropherogram seem to be many days apart which would certainly not rule out contamination.