You are the one trying to advance a theory she ate a second dinner idendtical to the first dinner she had with no evidence to back it up. Please...

Some kind of flour, mushroom, and a slice of apple is identical to no mushroom pizza and apple crumble? I think you need look to up what identical means. I would say about 20% of the time I have flour, cheese and apple concurrently in my stomach.

If you say she didn't eat again you also have the problem of a mushroom in the esophagus. There is multiple testimony that there was no mushroom at dinner.

Annnnnnnnnnnd we're back. Yay!

There is further the issue of her BAC. There was not booze at dinner either but she had a BAC equivalent to someone having a single drink.

Just helping you out 239!

Truthsayer,
I can tell you've been chomping at the bit waiting for the right moment to swoop back in and, god willing, not make yourself look like a complete ****** this time. However, you may want to consider the fact that it was Poker Reference that kept talking about stochastic effects. I was responding to her. Like I said before, I don't know what all encompasses "stochastic effects" in forensics analysis because I've never done forensics analysis.

I probably didn't make a post like yours because I posted multiple review papers talking about the exact technique we were discussing, from a world renowned expert in forensic and investigative genetics. If anyone had specific questions about PCR they could have, you know, asked me. But hey, why do we need expert opinions here when we have Truthsayer who just admitted in the same post he has absolutely no background in biology.

By the way, you keep saying it's a complete profile match for Meredith. Why then, is the DNA sample in question homozygous at the D21S11 locus yet Meredith is heterozygous at this locus? Why do you think it was just Meredith's DNA in the profile -- what are all those other peaks, exactly? Do you think Meredith's DNA could possibly be elsewhere in the lab besides on the knife? Given that other samples were tested in the lab -- and PCR was run on them which greatly amplifies the concentrations (i.e. the resulting amount of DNA matching Meredith's was way way way way higher from other sources after these tests than it was on the knife, even if we assume her DNA was on the knife -- why do you think you can completely eliminate the risk for contamination in the lab when every single scientific paper in existence says that LCN is at a greater risk for contamination? Especially given the fact, had the knife been used as a murder weapon, it was extensively cleaned such that zero blood showed up on it and the test for blood was way more sensitive than PCR? Why can you eliminate the risk of secondary transfer when the surrounding environment where the knife was found was not tested for Meredith's DNA, as is required by international protocols?

Maybe if you google stuff for another 20 minutes you can answer these questions and we can throw out all the testimony from Conti, Vecchiotti and all the other scientific studies from the forensics and investigative genetics experts who flat out say you are wrong. Who needs those dang gum scientific studies and experts when you have google and 20 minutes to spare, amirite?

Lol. Championing Oski as the guilter hero now, I see. If this is what it has come to I think the battle has already been decided.

I'm actually hoping you just haven't read his posts, because... well, if you have then wow.

By the way did they ever find the druidic satanic sex ritual cult leader? If not maybe they should press Raffaele harder and we can find the surviving Illuminati members. JFK's real killer. The true story behind Roswell. Who really brought down the twin towers. How someone with no biology background knows way more about genetics than world renowned experts in forensic and investigative genetics. etc.

They could have interrogated the she-devil Amanda more but unfortunately they let her get away back to America and she's now protected by the order of the dragon. I bet she is the key to it all though. You can tell by her eyes. I don't trust people with shifty eyes. They're all she-devil pagan cult leaders. All of em. Damnit where's my pitchfork?

Matt: the stuff you posted on DNA was a lot funnier.

No.

That is ten days before Poker Reference said anything about DNA. You brought it up and it is absolutely ******ed of you to do so.

There are at least a half dozen people with no background in biology who still understand the DNA evidence much better than you. This isn't complicated and you're dumb as **** so even if you actually do have a background in biology you're still at a huge disadvantage.

I guess Matt's new year's resolution to not get owned on this thread has already failed.

Fine, let me clarify since you have to resort to nitting over trivial **** and can't address anything with actual substance behind it.

The expert reports talked about stochastic noise. Expert reports which you linked to. I assumed PR and others were referring to those reports as well. I'm not 100% sure who linked what though because I didn't feel like taking the time to prepare my posts for your nitfest.

Anyway, there are tons of different genotyping chemistries. The experts all testified to there being limitations regarding use of LCN. I made an educated guess based on my limited information about the chemistry used and the methodologies employed as to what "stochastic noise" entailed. This is why I said, multiple times, that I was guessing what they meant by stochastic noise and allelic drop in but I couldn't be sure.

What I do know is that at some point Poker Reference was specifically talking about stochastic noise. And I also know that literally every single reliable resource I've found re: LCN analysis talks about unreliability of LCN under certain conditions. Stochastic noise is routinely brought up. If I guessed wrong on what they meant by "stochastic noise", well then **** me. I guess that invalidates every scientific study, ever, on the robustness and reliability of LCN.

I eagerly await to see what you're going to lolHenry about in this reply, because clearly nitting over one minor point when we have mountains of scientific evidence stating you are wrong is what this thread is about now.


yadda yadda yadda lolHenry. Yes Henry in your alternate dimension where DNA behaves by the rules you arbitrarily make up you and your cronies know way more about DNA evidence than all the scientific experts. Unfortunately for us you keep these rules locked away in psychoville so we can only guess what is going on inside your head when you come up with this ****. At least Truthsayer has demonstrated he has some knowledge of PCR now which is the exact opposite of what I can say for you, yet you still somehow keep claiming you understand even a little bit of the DNA evidence. Yes, lolHenry indeed.

By the way, if you guys honestly want to know what Bayesian inference error you are making, you're assuming P(Amanda=guilty|evidence) is the same as P(evidence|Amanda=guilty). This isn't true, like, at all. Especially in a case like this. And it appears that every single guilter in this thread has been ****ing this up from the beginning. Look up Prosecutor's fallacy and base rate fallacy if you want to understand more about how wrong you are about, well, everything there is to possibly be wrong about. There are those pesky logical fallacies again. Too bad Knox's dad used his bowling alley fundraiser money to invent a time machine and go back in time to convince that Bayes fellow to invent a bunch of math to make Henry and the guilter crew look like ******s. Must have had money leftover from his wikipedia and FBI buyouts.

Matt R.; your posts are just noise.

The purpose of linking to that report was to give raw data that it contains. You are not to treat the "expert" option as valid since there is strong evidence that the individuals whose name is on the report did not actually write it.

In English what this means is that you say a lot of stupid things then you deny saying them. I then establish that you did say them and then you claim it doesn't matter because I'm being a nit. This is the opposite of the other thing you do which is to claim you did do something then go on for multiple posts threatening but never delivering on producing the posts where you did what you claim. Eventually it gets unbearable so I go back and review all your posts and in every instance what you claim is not there. You need to give this up. I know you can't because failures like yourself are deeply committed to the delusion that you are not stupid but if you keep ignoring reality you'll just keep making an ass of yourself to the point where even your level of delusion can't ignore it. I think we passed that point a while ago which is why your posts have the tone of being written by a lunatic.

You are not pulling out the 239 tricks. You provided one journal article in a fringe journal and one posting on a corporate website by the same individual whose views are not considered mainstream. This has been explained to your multiple times but you seem incapable of understanding how publishing and studies in science work. Further, I provided a half dozen articles in real journals that completely contradict your position. You can't rely on one non-mainstream scientist's view and based on that claim that mainstream science is wrong. Even if you choose to believe he is right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong you don't get to represent his view as mainstream as you are trying to do here. To do so is called lying.

We don't -- see my second point in paragraph two of this post. What we have is mountains of evidence that while you almost certainly started in science you failed and don't understand how scientific research works.

All the scientific experts agree with my position. The exception is a US scientist who we have documented lying to advance Knox's position and two Italian academics who have had issues of credibility in the past and who did not write the report they signed their names to.

You can mock the idea that the American people were manipulated into believing a false reality but it happened. There are a several dozen important issues where the media reports X and the undisputed truth is Y. All of these mistakes are pro-Knox. This is not in dispute.

So given that you have two possible explanations.

1) All the mistakes happened naturally because the media is incompetent and it is just a huge coincidence that they all favour Knox.

2) The mistakes happened because the PR guy who brags about changing the views of America on Knox did his job and controlled the media.

#2 is an astronomical favourite in this situation to the point that the probability of #1 being the cause of the error is so low as to not be even worth considering.

Henry you realize you've completely lost your mind over this case.

Do you ever stop and reflect on what you're actually writing. I mean seriously......

You really believe the court appointed indepentent experts didn't write the report they went to court and testified about LOL Do you have any evidence they didn't write the report? You'd think such a criminal act of mis-leading the court would be investigated and they'd be up on charges

You really believe a guy who runs a small 12 man PR company in Seattle controlled and/or brainwashed the worlds media into believing Knox was innocent LOL. Or is more realistic this guy acted as a buffer between the family and the media and organised interviews and gave them advice about dealing with journalists.

You're a crackpot Henry.

Yes. It was been stated multiples times in this topic and is fairly strong. You can go back and read it if you wish.

Not the world media -- just the US. The rest of the world did a much better job of reporting on the case.

Also 12 people is a lot. My experience with spin is in the political world and most firms are half that size or smaller.

You avoided the question -- the pro-Knox errors in reporting happened. This can't be denied. So is the media just incompetent or where they manipulated? Which of those two is the more reasonable explanation for the errors?

If you go with media is incompetent then why don't they make these errors in other cases will be a my follow up question.

The largest PR company in the UK is Bell Pottinger Group with staff of 440 in 2011

http://toppragencies.prweek.co.uk/To...aguetable.aspx

The largest PR company in US is Edelman with staff of 4120

http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rank...dependents.htm

David Marroit = staff of 12. In your fantacy Marriot was working round the clock telling journalists what to say and how to think. North Korean state television eat your heart out.

The media reporting was dreaful, espically Follain, Nadeau & Vogt.

Here's an example of Follain competely rewording something Amanda wrote. The man is malicious and has no integrity.

In December 2006 she posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: "She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn't move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face."

Here is what Amanda actually wrote...

Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn't move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face.

You don't understand that public relations is a huge field. We are talking about a particular branch of it and the average size for firms that do work like Gogerty Marriott is 2-5 staff. A firm with 20 is considered huge. There are a lot of prestigious firms with 1-2 senior real employees and 1-2 supports staff. Most of the work is based on contacts and access and when it comes to labour intensive work you farm it out.

Gogerty Marriott based on their site and the cases they list have At&T and the Pickens Plan. For regional campaigns they represent the Seattle Seahawks and various Seattle hospitals that **** up and have negative patient outcomes. For crisis they have Alaska Airlines flight 261 crashing and Amanda Knox.

Yes.The three individuals who got the facts mostly correct and actually attended the trial are the ones who got it all wrong.

Can you just **** off

Henry, you've created a fantacy in your mind. It's sad to see what this case has done to you. You've basically lost the plot.

I suggest you look at all the police and media lies.

http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.co...and-Press-Lies

Was this what your big new years post? I waited eagerly for three weeks for this? One more disappointment from Matt.

Although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy has 17 references so I guess MattR probably feels like that is strong evidence he's right...

Matt: I am not really sure you understand the concept of "the prosecutor's fallacy."

Please explain what it means to you and how you are applying it in this case.

Eh? This is your big revelation? It's not even coherent.

The probability that Amanda is guilty given the evidence is maybe 99%? This is the only thing that matters.
The probability that we have the evidence we do given that Amanda is guilty is very hard to quantify, but is maybe 20-80% ticking things off broadly. More specifically, given that there is a wide range of possibilities of what the evidence would look like in Amanda guilt, any particular set of evidence given her guilt is actually quite improbable, because the set of possible evidence is so wide.

It's actually 239 who's making your error, so thanks for that. He has stated his confusion on this issue quite clearly. For example, he says there's no chance that no one in the group would snitch. He says that there's very small chance a large knife gets used. He's stated that it's incredibly improbable that none of her DNA/footprints are in the murder room (it's actually very common). He's talked about how incredibly rare female participants are (they're not). In 239 world, if the evidence suggests someone was killed by a group including a female, it's already long odds that she was framed, and all the evidence should be considered in that light.

He's making exactly the error you're talking about. He's taking all of these probabilities and summing them up and coming up with a very very low value. As would be the case in nearly any case; there's always missing evidence and things that don't make sense (not to mention, P(one person murders another) is very low to begin with.

He's basically working out P(evidence|Amanda=guilty), finding it very improbable (as a specific set of evidence in most murder cases is), and then conflating that with P(Amanda=guilty|evidence).

So thanks for pointing out 239's fallacies. Perhaps you can educate him? I'm sure he's already grateful for your participation in this thread and would doubly appreciate schooling in Bayesian inference.
I'm really looking forward to your response to Oski on this topic.