Page 18 of 83 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18 19 20 28 68 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 1236
  1. #256
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?
    I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?


  2. #257
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

    Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

    There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

    I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

    But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.
    Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.


  3. #258
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

    We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.
    Yes, seems to be a lot of arguing for the sake of it today.

    I'll talk to you guys later... Hope everyone had an enjoyable weekend!


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Malkmus For This Useful Post:


  5. #259
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,976
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.
    So I assume you are conceding that, as far as we know, Dr. S merely said RS spoke of water on the floor, not the actual time of eating.

    That may mean that RS and AK ate earlier and discovered the leak after dinner, but it does not necessarily prove they did so, not in my experience.


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  7. #260
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    The link I provided below is the discussion we had about the dinner, the leak, the dinner time. The discussion follows for many pages. I see no reason whatsover to repeat the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    "m saying I don't know. 3 and a half hours is certainly long enough to have a small meal and then eat again later. (Particularly with college-age people; I find them to have rather irregular eating habits.)

    Did RS say to his father, "We have now eaten our entire dinner and will eat no more tonight"? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely RS said they had been cooking pasta and there was a leak. That would be a more believable conversation.

    In the Court Report, the judge merely assumes the cooking mentioned at 8:30 pm represented all the cooking for the evening. It doesn't not quote RS or his father as saying so.

    Lots of European countries eat dinner later than we do in the states. Dining out at 10 or 11 is not at all uncommon.

    So I repeat: why is it assumed that cooking pasta at 8:30 means RS and AK couldn't have cooked and eaten a fish at 11?
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=leak&page=10


  8. #261
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,976
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The link I provided below is the discussion we had about the dinner, the leak, the dinner time. The discussion follows for many pages. I see no reason whatsover to repeat the discussion.



    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=leak&page=10
    I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

    Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

    One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

    Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.

    ETA: your post #238 on this page:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=leak&page=10


    illustrates my point. You quote the MR as to the dinner times, but when it comes time to talk about Dr. S' testimony, YOU switch to your own voice to claim Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was over. You then continue to quote the MR, but the MR merely says Dr. S claimed RS mentioned a leak and then the MR deduces that dinner was over. I have questioned that deduction; it is an opinion, but far from a fact.
    Last edited by Nova; 04-03-2011 at 08:12 PM.


  9. #262
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkmus View Post
    I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?
    I think there are several uses of the word "conceivable".


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  11. #263
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

    Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

    One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

    Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.
    It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  13. #264
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,855
    Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

    All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

    This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

    If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
    From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".
    http://www.*********.com/contributed...-knox-material


  14. The Following User Says Thank You to SMK For This Useful Post:


  15. #265
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,976
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.
    We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

    But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  17. #266
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

    All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

    This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

    If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
    From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".
    http://www.*********.com/contributed...-knox-material
    I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.


  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  19. #267
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.
    I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said.


  20. #268
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

    But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.
    This is what is included in the Judges summary, and why I believe, as fact, that the pair ate dinner at about 8:30 prior to the water leak:

    "She also had to get a mop, because the evening before, Raffaele, after dinner, had spilled water from the sink and was not able to clean it up." (pg 65)

    "Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn’t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house." (pg 67)

    "They ate dinner, ‚but very late‛ (page 77). They ate fish and salad. Then, while Raffaele was washing the dishes, from the sink, a leak was noticed: ‚water was leaking below and he looked at it; he turned off the water and then looked below the sink, and this pipe had become loose, so the water that was coming from the faucet was leaking out.‛ (page 77)." (pg 69)

    "Returning to the episode of the water leaking from the sink of Raffaele’s house, she stated that that (leak) had happened after dinner" (pg 73)

    "Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink." (pg 78)

    "He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor‛, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)." (pg 63)


  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  22. #269
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,873
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said.
    I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

    Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

    ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.
    Last edited by otto; 04-03-2011 at 09:37 PM.


  23. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  24. #270
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

    Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

    ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.


Page 18 of 83 FirstFirst ... 8 16 17 18 19 20 28 68 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1206
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 12:43 AM
  2. Replies: 749
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:59 PM
  3. Replies: 317
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:45 PM
  4. Replies: 826
    Last Post: 02-07-2011, 01:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •