ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 12th February 2019, 06:54 PM   #3041
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Remind me not to ask you which horse at Santa Anita you like.
Why not? You'd know which one to avoid!!!!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 08:40 PM   #3042
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
There are other equally plausible explanations for the "error". One is that this thread is being trolled.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure.

But for anyone who wants to cross-check, she posted the VLBA on Mauna-Kea as an example of a rotating cell antenna.

Link for the interested.
When you add up all the errors in relevant subject-knowledge by the guilters (a hilarious example: one a few years ago stated or implied in a post that the ECHR was located in Brussels; that's probably why it's often referred to as the Strasbourg Court) while they claim expert knowledge in all those relevant subjects (remember the discussion on the physics of the stone toss), what conclusion can one come to?

For the guilters, it's not all for Meredith. It's all to keep the hoax of guilt alive.

Without their outlandish "errors" or the twisted facts and logic, there would be no hope that the guilters could maintain the guilt hoax.

The original police investigation and prosecution of the case was essentially noted as a hasty error-filled exercise not leading to the real truth, and thus, one may suspect, itself was a kind of hoax, in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report (p. 46 of the translation):

"4.1 Certainly an unusual media clamour about the case ... led to a sudden acceleration of the investigations, in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the real truth. In homicides such as this (such pressure) affects not only the timing but also the competence and the correctness of the investigative activities."

The guilters are simply continuing the hoax begun by the police and the prosecutor.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 08:44 AM   #3043
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The guilters are simply continuing the hoax begun by the police and the prosecutor.
A hoax is a deception or a ruse. I disagree that the cops/PM's intent was to deceive. They were practisioneers of dietrology.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 10:38 AM   #3044
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
A hoax is a deception or a ruse. I disagree that the cops/PM's intent was to deceive. They were practisioneers of dietrology.
No, one must practice dietrology (the hidden significance behind the events) in order to understand when it occurs in others.

The techniques the police used were themselves deceptive ruses. The police were interested in closing the case quickly, thus they focused on those who could be readily blamed with a little help from coercion to "break" them.

On that basis, it was a hoax.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 10:44 AM   #3045
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,764
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
No, one must practice dietrology (the hidden significance behind the events) in order to understand when it occurs in others.

The techniques the police used were themselves deceptive ruses. The police were interested in closing the case quickly, thus they focused on those who could be readily blamed with a little help from coercion to "break" them.

On that basis, it was a hoax.
In my less-than-expert opinion they suffered from group-think and investigative-myopia, more than any conscious desire to perpetuate a wilful hoax.

At last, something we disagree on? Whose side will Vixen take?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 11:11 AM   #3046
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
In my less-than-expert opinion they suffered from group-think and investigative-myopia, more than any conscious desire to perpetuate a wilful hoax.

At last, something we disagree on? Whose side will Vixen take?
I have to agree with you on this, Bill. I don't think the police or Mignini went into this case intentionally looking to set up AK, RS or anyone. I think they were just really bad at jumping to conclusions, had investigative- myopia and -amnesia , and once they'd declared 'caso chiuso' were defensive of the position they had created for themselves.

The only 'conspiracy' I think occurred was when the police banded together to deny Knox's charges of how her interrogation was performed. That was pure self-preservation and the 'blue code of silence'...you don't rat on fellow police officers.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 11:46 AM   #3047
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
In my less-than-expert opinion they suffered from group-think and investigative-myopia, more than any conscious desire to perpetuate a wilful hoax.

At last, something we disagree on? Whose side will Vixen take?
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have to agree with you on this, Bill. I don't think the police or Mignini went into this case intentionally looking to set up AK, RS or anyone. I think they were just really bad at jumping to conclusions, had investigative- myopia and -amnesia , and once they'd declared 'caso chiuso' were defensive of the position they had created for themselves.

The only 'conspiracy' I think occurred was when the police banded together to deny Knox's charges of how her interrogation was performed. That was pure self-preservation and the 'blue code of silence'...you don't rat on fellow police officers.
From the Marasca CSC panel MR: "in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the real truth...."

The police (and the prosecutor) made some early decisions to lighten the burden of looking for suspects.

They assumed, without any scientific or technical evidence, that the breakin was staged. This essentially eliminated any outside person and focused attention on the residents of the flat. That's hoaxing.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 11:58 AM   #3048
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
From the Marasca CSC panel MR: "in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the real truth...."

The police (and the prosecutor) made some early decisions to lighten the burden of looking for suspects.

They assumed, without any scientific or technical evidence, that the breakin was staged. This essentially eliminated any outside person and focused attention on the residents of the flat. That's hoaxing.
No, that's jumping to conclusions using 'gut instincts' and mistaken beliefs (only women cover bodies) and bad investigative techniques...or in the case of determining the break-in was staged...no investigation at all. A simple glass shatter test would have determined from which side the glass was broken. Not done. An investigation would have shown the fresh impact mark on the outside of the inner shutter. And as we've seen in the video, it was certainly possible, even easy, for a tall athlete like Guede to scale the wall to the window.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 13th February 2019 at 12:40 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 03:42 PM   #3049
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, that's jumping to conclusions using 'gut instincts' and mistaken beliefs (only women cover bodies) and bad investigative techniques...or in the case of determining the break-in was staged...no investigation at all. A simple glass shatter test would have determined from which side the glass was broken. Not done. An investigation would have shown the fresh impact mark on the outside of the inner shutter. And as we've seen in the video, it was certainly possible, even easy, for a tall athlete like Guede to scale the wall to the window.
Anna Donnino admitted to the Boninsegna court that she knew that Amanda's cell phone message was the indefinite greeting "see you later" as translated from English. She did not inform her colleagues.

When police officer Ficcara was asked during the cross-examination of her testimony in the Massei trial if she knew the meaning of the English phrase "see you later" (said in English), she said yes. When she was asked what it would be in Italian, she used the same words that Amanda used in her text message. When she was asked why it was not considered merely a greeting, she responded it was because that under the circumstances, they knew it was not a greeting.

When high-ranking police officer Giobbi was asked in his testimony about when Amanda became a suspect, he said it was when he perceived her to wiggle her hips when she put on booties before entering with him the downstairs flat.

These and other indicators mean that the Italian police were "making a murderer". It's not that they absolutely knew Amanda or Raffaele to be innocent. Rather, the police and Mignini were not concerned with that detail. They were seeking to construct a case, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele, to provide evidence, whether or not credible, that an Italian court would accept as showing guilt, and thus "solving" this case quickly.

Recall, too, that Mignini or other prosecutors, in charging Amanda with calunnia against the police and himself, identified four potential criminal charges against the police and Mignini implied by her statements describing the conduct of the police and Mignini during the interrogation.

This behavior is hoaxing. Hoaxing can begin with jumping to a conclusion; it is the failure to apply reasonable skepticism to that conclusion, and to use unfair means to continue to support that unfounded conclusion, that gives the hoax life.

Here's a hypothetical from science that may help explain this concept.

Suppose a group of scientists are conducting research on neutrinos, which are very small nearly mass-less particles emitted, for example, in some types of nuclear particle decays. The neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light, according to previous experiments, and according to theory, because they have an extremely small but non-zero mass, they cannot travel at the speed of light nor, of course, any faster.

However, according to the spokes-scientist for the group, their newly performed experiment shows that neutrinos faster than light, and a repeat experiment confirmed the result.

In reality, the scientists investigated their results and their experimental set-up and found errors in their set-up produced erroneous results.

But hypothetically, if the scientists decided that, having made this announcement, they had to pretend that the experiment had been set up properly and they claimed that neutrinos really did travel faster than light, they would be hoaxing.

I hope that makes what I mean clearer.

Here are the analogies: The improper set up of the experiment = police misconduct, including violation of criminal laws; the claims of neutrino hyperlight speed (based on a "false" improperly set up experiment) = claiming Amanda and Raffaele were guilty (based on false alleged evidence gained through police misconduct, later including forensic laboratory misconduct).

Last edited by Numbers; 13th February 2019 at 03:46 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2019, 08:25 PM   #3050
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Anna Donnino admitted to the Boninsegna court that she knew that Amanda's cell phone message was the indefinite greeting "see you later" as translated from English. She did not inform her colleagues.

When police officer Ficcara was asked during the cross-examination of her testimony in the Massei trial if she knew the meaning of the English phrase "see you later" (said in English), she said yes. When she was asked what it would be in Italian, she used the same words that Amanda used in her text message. When she was asked why it was not considered merely a greeting, she responded it was because that under the circumstances, they knew it was not a greeting.

When high-ranking police officer Giobbi was asked in his testimony about when Amanda became a suspect, he said it was when he perceived her to wiggle her hips when she put on booties before entering with him the downstairs flat.

These and other indicators mean that the Italian police were "making a murderer". It's not that they absolutely knew Amanda or Raffaele to be innocent. Rather, the police and Mignini were not concerned with that detail. They were seeking to construct a case, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele, to provide evidence, whether or not credible, that an Italian court would accept as showing guilt, and thus "solving" this case quickly.

Recall, too, that Mignini or other prosecutors, in charging Amanda with calunnia against the police and himself, identified four potential criminal charges against the police and Mignini implied by her statements describing the conduct of the police and Mignini during the interrogation.

This behavior is hoaxing. Hoaxing can begin with jumping to a conclusion; it is the failure to apply reasonable skepticism to that conclusion, and to use unfair means to continue to support that unfounded conclusion, that gives the hoax life.

Here's a hypothetical from science that may help explain this concept.

Suppose a group of scientists are conducting research on neutrinos, which are very small nearly mass-less particles emitted, for example, in some types of nuclear particle decays. The neutrinos travel at slightly less than the speed of light, according to previous experiments, and according to theory, because they have an extremely small but non-zero mass, they cannot travel at the speed of light nor, of course, any faster.

However, according to the spokes-scientist for the group, their newly performed experiment shows that neutrinos faster than light, and a repeat experiment confirmed the result.

In reality, the scientists investigated their results and their experimental set-up and found errors in their set-up produced erroneous results.

But hypothetically, if the scientists decided that, having made this announcement, they had to pretend that the experiment had been set up properly and they claimed that neutrinos really did travel faster than light, they would be hoaxing.

I hope that makes what I mean clearer.

Here are the analogies: The improper set up of the experiment = police misconduct, including violation of criminal laws; the claims of neutrino hyperlight speed (based on a "false" improperly set up experiment) = claiming Amanda and Raffaele were guilty (based on false alleged evidence gained through police misconduct, later including forensic laboratory misconduct).
I should add to the above that among the crimes Mignini and one or more other prosecutors claimed they would be charged with, if Amanda Knox's statements describing the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007 and the police and Mignini's actions were true, were the crimes of calunnia (malicious false accusation, that is, falsely accusing someone of a crime when the accuser knows that person to be innocent) and ideological falsity (the act of a police officer, prosecutor, or other authority knowingly making false statements in writing an official report).

So there we have Mignini and/or another prosecutor stating that if one believes Amanda's statements about the police and prosecution behavior, those officials were knowingly falsely accusing her and knowingly making false entries into official records. Thus, the Italian authorities themselves state that the police and prosecution behavior during the interrogation, if Amanda's complaints about them are to be believed, constitute a hoax (or, if you prefer, deliberate lies and a fraud).

No wonder the Italian courts repeatedly refused to investigate Amanda's credible complaints of mistreatment, as noted by the ECHR in its Knox v. Italy judgment of 24 January 2019.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.