[mp3]http://podcast.bogosity.tv/mp3s/BogosityPodcast-2014-02-03.mp3[/mp3]
Co-Host: Jonathan Loesche
News of the Bogus:
- 0:30 - Dutch Court Rules That IP Blocks Are Ineffective Against Piracy http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/28/dutch-court-rules-ip-blocks-ineffective-piracy-unblocks-pirate-bay/
- 5:13 - US oversight panel: Gov't should stop collecting phone records; program illegal, ineffective http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/23/us-oversight-panel-govt-should-stop-collecting-phone-records-program-illegal/
- 10:00 - Fired red light camera exec says bribery widespread at Redflex http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-23/news/ct-redflex-red-light-bribery-20140123_1_redflex-holdings-ltd-company-policy-camera-company
- Jacksonville's red-light cameras http://jacksonville.com/slideshow/2014-01-29/jacksonvilles-red-light-cameras
- 14:19 - Man in jail for marijuana is allowed to leave once a month to smoke marijuana http://txcann.com/2014/01/26/man-in-jail-for-marijuana-is-allowed-to-leave-once-a-month-to-smoke-marijuana/
- 16:04 - Amanda Knox Verdict: Italian Court Finds American Student Guilty Of Murder http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/30/amanda-knox-verdict_n_4689258.html
21:03 -
Biggest Bogon Emitter: The Daily Show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/the-daily-show-minimum-wage_n_4688134.html
- Workers with Disabilities http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/sec14.asp
- TV tricks of the trade -- Quotes and cutaways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMglQX6gE
- Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
(http://nebraskaenergyobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/xsnje74.jpg)
29:45 -
Idiot Extraordinaire: China http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-23/news/46514138_1_internet-qihoo-sina-com
This Week's Quote: "Let children read whatever they want and then talk about it with them. If parents and kids can talk together, we won't have as much censorship because we won't have as much fear." —Judy Blum
When it comes to the Amanda Knox stuff, I read the most asinine remarks by a Harvard law professor about this issue. It was on an article on CNN called, "What's next for Amanda Knox? (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/justice/italy-knox-future/)"
QuoteHarvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said Knox's looks and public support may help her. "As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman, we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld.
"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he told AFP.
From the same article, Julian Ku also said this when American lawyers argue that this is double jeopardy:
QuoteA law professor disagreed. "They always forget she was convicted first," Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York, told Agence-France Presse.
If Italy does file an extradition request with the U.S. State Department, Knox will have the right to challenge her transfer to Italy in a U.S. court. "The chances of her winning that are not high because there has to be some very strong claim she'd have to make to block her extradition," Ku added.
"I followed the trial, it was slow but I never got the sense that it was unfair," he said.
Complete nonsense.
As far as Peter Schiff goes however, while it's true that the Daily Show acted completely dishonestly and are massive hypocrites for using unpaid interns to make a guy who disagrees with minimum wage laws look like a selfish monster who hates the poor, Schiff should have known better than to agree to do a comedy show and expect honest to goodness journalistic integrity. The Daily Show has been around long enough that he has no excuse to not know better.
Quote from: D on February 02, 2014, 04:54:21 PM
When it comes to the Amanda Knox stuff, I read the most asinine remarks by a Harvard law professor about this issue. It was on an article on CNN called, "What's next for Amanda Knox? (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/justice/italy-knox-future/)"
I think I've seen ONE picture of Amanda Knox. And I can't even call up what she looks like in my head. This isn't about that. It's about an obviously innocent person being railroaded.
QuoteFrom the same article, Julian Ku also said this when American lawyers argue that this is double jeopardy:
It doesn't matter if she was convicted FIFTY times! Once you're found not guilty, that's that!
QuoteAs far as Peter Schiff goes however, while it's true that the Daily Show acted completely dishonestly and are massive hypocrites for using unpaid interns to make a guy who disagrees with minimum wage laws look like a selfish monster who hates the poor, Schiff should have known better than to agree to do a comedy show and expect honest to goodness journalistic integrity. The Daily Show has been around long enough that he has no excuse to not know better.
They're usually not THAT bad. And he's been on the show before and they were pretty respectful to him. Of course, like FSBlueApocalypse said, there's a difference between being interviewed live by Jon Stewart and being in a prerecorded segment. Also, I think Schiff said he knew going into it it'd be a hit piece.
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that. In fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge. That's what they were held accountable for. It's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur when they knew that this was impossible to predict. BTW, the politicians in question were also convicted.
Ok, so I guess I was right. I dunno where you got your info, but I just checked some news stories from 2009 where Amanda Knox' sentence was discussed. According to the verdict, there was DNA of Amanda on the victim and they found a knife in Amanda's boyfriends flat that had both her and the victim's DNA on it. While the evidence appeared to be flimsy, it's certainly false that they didn't find anything.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 02, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
I think I've seen ONE picture of Amanda Knox. And I can't even call up what she looks like in my head. This isn't about that. It's about an obviously innocent person being railroaded.
Well, what I remember from the original lawsuit was that her looks were made into a big deal by the media. I think she was called "angel with icy eyes" in Italy. Of course that shouldn't have anything to do with anything, and I'm confident that at least when it comes to the courts, it doesn't.
However, I wonder how you know that she's "obviously innocent". Personally, I certainly lack the necessary information to make a call on the matter, but I seem to know more than you do. From what I know, I'd still plead 'not guilty', but I wouldn't say that it's obvious. But even if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't claim it to be without being in possession of all the facts, preferably reading all the court's transcripts. It's somewhat presumptuous to make such a bold statement without knowing the basics of the lawsuit, let alone the details.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 02, 2014, 05:53:18 PMIt doesn't matter if she was convicted FIFTY times! Once you're found not guilty, that's that!
Why's that? Again that's a very bold statement. Say a murder suspect gets away due to insufficient evidence, then later new evidence appears that prove beyond doubt that he/she did it, for example a video tape. Shouldn't he/she be convicted then?
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 01:53:02 AM
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that.
Yes, they were. We covered it in detail when it happened.
QuoteIn fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge.
NO THEY DID NOT. They told the truth: smaller quakes are no indication of a bigger one coming. Sometimes they're preceded by smaller quakes, sometimes they're not. And a lot of times the smaller quakes happen with no big one following after. Pretty much every geologist on the planet backs them up on that. Smaller quakes are NO predictor of a bigger one coming.
QuoteIt's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur
They DID NOT predict that no earthquake would occur. They never said ANYTHING LIKE THAT. They said there's no reason to believe a large earthquake would occur then any more than there would at any other time, WHICH WAS TRUE.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 03:07:07 AM
According to the verdict, there was DNA of Amanda on the victim
None of Knox's DNA was on the victim.
Quoteand they found a knife in Amanda's boyfriends flat that had both her and the victim's DNA on it.
Nope, just
hers the victim's. None of
the victim's Knox's DNA was on the knife. (EDIT: Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly before.)
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 03:54:27 AMHowever, I wonder how you know that she's "obviously innocent".
Because of the complete and utter lack of evidence, combined with the copious evidence pointing to Guede. As I said, how likely is it that she'd be able to clean up every single bit of her own DNA and other material there, while leaving his? It's a Likelihood Ratio that's so low it might as well be zero!
QuoteWhy's that? Again that's a very bold statement. Say a murder suspect gets away due to insufficient evidence, then later new evidence appears that prove beyond doubt that he/she did it, for example a video tape. Shouldn't he/she be convicted then?
Nope. No do-overs from an acquittal.
Now the judge has spoken out: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amanda-knox-s-judge-says-he-suffered-over-guilty-verdict-1.2520222
Apparently, Knox is guilty because of two things:
1) She had a motive (although prosecutors couldn't agree on what it was)
2) She didn't show up for work
That's IT. If you can convict someone on that line of reasoning, you can convict practically ANYONE.
What's also interesting (aside from the incredibly short amount of time the jury spent deliberating, which I neglected to mention in the podcast) is also that, apparently, the jury AND THE JUDGE have to agree on a verdict. Wow. Italian courts are screwed up.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot 3) The defendants didn't take the stand in their defense. Yeah.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:35:36 AM
Now the judge has spoken out: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amanda-knox-s-judge-says-he-suffered-over-guilty-verdict-1.2520222
Apparently, Knox is guilty because of two things:
1) She had a motive (although prosecutors couldn't agree on what it was)
2) She didn't show up for work
That's IT. If you can convict someone on that line of reasoning, you can convict practically ANYONE.
What's also interesting (aside from the incredibly short amount of time the jury spent deliberating, which I neglected to mention in the podcast) is also that, apparently, the jury AND THE JUDGE have to agree on a verdict. Wow. Italian courts are screwed up.
EDIT: Oh, I forgot 3) The defendants didn't take the stand in their defense. Yeah.
Wow. As far as I'm concerned, that makes their court system illegitimate.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 01:53:02 AM
On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that. In fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge. That's what they were held accountable for. It's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur when they knew that this was impossible to predict. BTW, the politicians in question were also convicted.
OK, let the Geologist here actually have some input:
firstly, the Geologists in general didn't really say what you imply they said: they said at the meeting of theirs there was no way to know that there was an earthquake coming: it may or may not. big difference. As Boschi pointed out, the only way they could have avoided this whole bullshit was to say: "yeah! and Earthquake is definitely coming!" but, not being God, he and the others couldn't, and can't.
secondly, and very much worth noting is that the Geologists--especially the geophysicists and seismologists--themselves were not allowed time to talk to the media regarding this: a couple of the commissioners (one of whom was a volcanologist) did try to reassure the public, but even if we were take it as saying "there will be no earthquake" (which it wasn't), that's just two of the six people: why punish four others for what two did?
so I hate to break it to you, but yea, they are being punished for failing to predict an earthquake: pretty it up all you want, but it's the truth. failure to predict an earthquake, is not the same as saying "there will be no earthquake", since the persons in question only had to to say "I don't know, and there is no way to know", and still meet the criterion of failing to predict an earthquake.
http://www.livescience.com/39978-enzo-boschi-denounces-laquila-conviction.html
Peter Schiff just released this (http://www.schiffradio.com/b/EXCLUSIVE:-How-The-Daily-Show-Lies/-846064028400943500.html):
QuoteFrom: [redacted] [mailto:xxxxxx@thedailyshow.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Andrew Schiff
Subject: RE: FW: The Daily Show
We NEVER edit out of context. Meaning we never ever show responses to a question we never asked. For starters it LOOKS BAD! But in all seriousness it's not our prerogative to attack our interview subjects & slander them (unless they say really horrible, awful, racist things... but last I checked Peter doesn't say such things!).
The general idea is to pretend this is a real news interview & correct our correspondent when he/she asks goofy questions. Our questions usually come from misunderstanding the other side's arguments, for example. We want our interview subject to play the straight guy & that way they look normal & we look like the fool.
In this case Samantha Bee is our correspondent. She'll take things she heard at these fast food strikes & report them back to Peter. Peter tells Sam why she may be mistaken, or what the strikers aren't taking into account, etc. That's the general idea. And we'll go over all of this before we start up the cameras next week. (Peter & Jena can also discuss these concerns over the phone tomorrow.)
But rest assured-- NOTHING will be edited out of context.
If you guys have any other questions or concerns don't hesitate to bring them up!
[redacted]
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
604 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
This needs to be spread like wild fire so that future guests will be made aware that the Daily Show's promises mean nothing.
Quote from: D on February 03, 2014, 04:52:26 PM
Peter Schiff just released this (http://www.schiffradio.com/b/EXCLUSIVE:-How-The-Daily-Show-Lies/-846064028400943500.html):
This needs to be spread like wild fire so that future guests will be made aware that the Daily Show's promises mean nothing.
From his post immediately before that one:
QuoteThe segment shows Samantha Bee asking a question or making a statement, but then uses my answer or reaction to a completely different question from an entirely different part of the conversation.
In fact, my comment about people being "worth what they are worth" was not said in reference to the intellectually disabled. I told Samantha Bee something to the effect of, "If an individual can only deliver $5 per hour of productivity to an employer, but the government mandates a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, an employer would be legally prohibited from hiring that worker. The government cannot force employers to pay workers more than they are worth -- YOU ARE WORTH WHAT YOU ARE WORTH -- and the only way a worker can earn more money is to increase his value to employers."
What can I say but, "CALLED IT!!!"
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 03, 2014, 04:18:50 PM
OK, let the Geologist here actually have some input:
firstly, the Geologists in general didn't really say what you imply they said: they said at the meeting of theirs there was no way to know that there was an earthquake coming: it may or may not. big difference. As Boschi pointed out, the only way they could have avoided this whole bullshit was to say: "yeah! and Earthquake is definitely coming!" but, not being God, he and the others couldn't, and can't.
secondly, and very much worth noting is that the Geologists--especially the geophysicists and seismologists--themselves were not allowed time to talk to the media regarding this: a couple of the commissioners (one of whom was a volcanologist) did try to reassure the public, but even if we were take it as saying "there will be no earthquake" (which it wasn't), that's just two of the six people: why punish four others for what two did?
so I hate to break it to you, but yea, they are being punished for failing to predict an earthquake: pretty it up all you want, but it's the truth. failure to predict an earthquake, is not the same as saying "there will be no earthquake", since the persons in question only had to to say "I don't know, and there is no way to know", and still meet the criterion of failing to predict an earthquake.
http://www.livescience.com/39978-enzo-boschi-denounces-laquila-conviction.html
Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. I'm sure that most of the time these geologists in question were honest and said that there is no way of knowing when an earthquake might hit you, but here there was clear evidence that local politicians and these scientists came together and conspired to give the public the perception of there not being any danger.
For example there was the case of Giampaolo Giuliani, a technician who has been able to predict a couple of earthquakes in the past. The city of L'Aquila funded his research and shortly before the devastating earthquake, he predicted it. What the people that were later sued did was not only to doubt his prediction (which they would have been perfectly justified to do as he is a bit of a crank), they actually sued him for panic mongering claiming that no earthquake was coming.
Secondly, there were lots of wiretaps going on at the time due to suspicion of corruption (many of which turned out to be justified) and they proved that the geologists were persuaded by the politicians to act against better knowledge.
Lastly, on the night before the quake, there was the fatal press conference with those scientists in which they didn't qualify their statements by saying that nobody can predict earthquakes or that the chances of an earthquake are as they always are. They deliberately (as the wiretaps proved) failed to do so. What they did say was that there's nothing to fear and that the inhabitants should make themselves a nice evening. A couple of hours later, more than 300 were dead.
Back when the court case was finished, I heard a radio program where they questioned German geologists about the case and while they were shocked by the severity of the sentences, they agreed with the lawsuit being brought forth to begin with as the scientists and politicians in question "made statements that were simply factually wrong".
So as I originally said, this is more complicated than it is made out to be. It's really less a case about science and more about Italian corruption.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
Smaller quakes are NO predictor of a bigger one coming.
Sure, but that's not what I claimed and it's not what this was about. See my post above.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
None of Knox's DNA was on the victim.
I checked it once again, and YES, they DID find DNA of her. Which if you think about it isn't too surprising as they shared an apartment. It would have been more extraordinary if they didn't find her DNA. Crucially however, they did find Amanda's DNA on the bra the victim was wearing.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:10:01 AM
Nope, just hers the victim's. None of the victim's Knox's DNA was on the knife. (EDIT: Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly before.)
That's true, I have since read more on the issue and while a first test found both, her and the victim's DNA, a second test didn't. In that case, it should be "in dubio pro reo".
Apart from the DNA evidence, what did play the biggest role in the original lawsuit (and I would guess also in the most current one) were her contradictory statements and her accusation of someone who turned out to be innocent, combined with a faked break in to the apartment.
As I said, I'm also in the "not guilty" camp, but I wouldn't call it obvious. I think the overall evidence (as far as I'm aware of it) is too flimsy so convict anyone. But there's another chance as there's one more appeal court to go to.
EDIT: Here's an overview of the evidence against Amanda and her former boyfriend. It comes from a biased source I guess, so take it with a grain of salt. Again, I'm still not convinced that this is enough to convict them. But it shows that this isn't as open and shut as you made it out to be:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 06:12:48 AM
Nope. No do-overs from an acquittal.
I get that this is an Anglo-Saxon principle in the judiciary system. But I fail to see why this has to be so. In fact, I find it to be just wrong. I don't see any good reason for why mistakes shouldn't be allowed to get corrected.
What if it turns out that a judge/jury that lets a murder suspect go was bribed to do so? What if other new evidence appears?
I get that a citizen should be protected from being sued over and over again for the same "crime" until the verdict suits the prosecutor. But you can have that protection and still allow for a re-trial when new evidence appears.
Quote
Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. I'm sure that most of the time these geologists in question were honest and said that there is no way of knowing when an earthquake might hit you, but here there was clear evidence that local politicians and these scientists came together and conspired to give the public the perception of there not being any danger.
that's not what I've read in the articles (including the one in science) that I did read but I'll hear you out: it wouldn't be the first time news was misreported. Things have gotten interesting: I was not aware of any evidence of an actual conspiracy or dealings or the like. the articles were simply stating what we told you.
Quote
Secondly, there were lots of wiretaps going on at the time due to suspicion of corruption (many of which turned out to be justified) and they proved that the geologists were persuaded by the politicians to act against better knowledge.
is there a transcript, or the recordings proper? If so, I'd be very interested to see or hear this. If it is the case, I think more people should know about it. It certainly has troubling implications on the matter: if they are taking bribes or similar, then it raises a BIG question mark on the integrity of the Italian scientific scene.
QuoteLastly, on the night before the quake, there was the fatal press conference with those scientists in which they didn't qualify their statements by saying that nobody can predict earthquakes or that the chances of an earthquake are as they always are. They deliberately (as the wiretaps proved) failed to do so. What they did say was that there's nothing to fear and that the inhabitants should make themselves a nice evening. A couple of hours later, more than 300 were dead.
well, the sceintists most relevant to this matter weren't allowed to speak to the media privately, so it's no surprise (the transcripts of this would further add to the picture). I think we can both agree that the conference did not communicate the facts to the people, though I only know two people from the committee who could speak to the media (the politician and the Vulcanologist).
QuoteBack when the court case was finished, I heard a radio program where they questioned German geologists about the case and while they were shocked by the severity of the sentences, they agreed with the lawsuit being brought forth to begin with as the scientists and politicians in question "made statements that were simply factually wrong".
So as I originally said, this is more complicated than it is made out to be. It's really less a case about science and more about Italian corruption.
I would agree with the Germans, if this is indeed the case: I know one of the Politicians did say to the people n the conference that the chances of an earthquake were reduced by the minor tremors--which indeed is wrong, but aside from him, I don't see why the severity of the sentence to the scientists.
either way, this is not a good thing to hear, and does not cast the Italian Government in a favorable light.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 06:45:25 PM
what did play the biggest role in the original lawsuit (and I would guess also in the most current one) were her contradictory statements and her accusation of someone who turned out to be innocent, combined with a faked break in to the apartment.
Which is why it's FUCKING BULLSHIT. Not only were those statements all but coerced, made after she was interrogated at length and sleep-deprived, having been denied an attorney and not even informed she was a suspect (which would get them thrown out of any DECENT court), but the main thing here is you CANNOT use the defendant's behavior as primary evidence. You need physical evidence linking to her first, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT.
This is also what they said about Casey Anthony. This is how innocent people get railroaded.
QuoteAs I said, I'm also in the "not guilty" camp, but I wouldn't call it obvious. I think the overall evidence (as far as I'm aware of it) is too flimsy so convict anyone. But there's another chance as there's one more appeal court to go to.
It shouldn't have happened AT ALL! Once you're acquitted, that's IT! If this is really how the Italian courts work, then everything is bullshit except for the very last appeal trial, and you might as well just skip the rigmarole and go straight to the last one.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 06:54:26 PM
I get that this is an Anglo-Saxon principle in the judiciary system. But I fail to see why this has to be so.
Because the government can't just keep trying until it gets lucky.
QuoteWhat if it turns out that a judge/jury that lets a murder suspect go was bribed to do so?
If the defendant was involved, then the acquittal is invalid. But that's pretty much the only case.
QuoteWhat if other new evidence appears?
Tough. The state should have done their job collecting evidence the first time around.
QuoteBut you can have that protection and still allow for a re-trial when new evidence appears.
No, you can't. Because then you'd have 10 innocent people imprisoned for every 1 guilty person that goes free, instead of the other way around.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 03, 2014, 06:55:13 PM
is there a transcript, or the recordings proper? If so, I'd be very interested to see or hear this. If it is the case, I think more people should know about it. It certainly has troubling implications on the matter: if they are taking bribes or similar, then it raises a BIG question mark on the integrity of the Italian scientific scene.
I'm sure there are transcripts, in fact I know there are. Some of the taps are even on YouTube. But I don't speak Italian, so it's difficult for me to sieve through all of that. I followed the story from Germany and here we got most of the same coverage as people in the US did. So at first I was just as enraged about it. But once I dug a little deeper, I saw that it really wasn't about science but about corruption.
A quick google search provided me with this English language article, talking about the wiretaps and also linking to some audio files:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html?full=true#.UvAxenlPuTo
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
...but the main thing here is you CANNOT use the defendant's behavior as primary evidence.
I agree that the behavior ALONE cannot possibly be considered evidence. But if it fits into a larger narrative that is (crucially) ALSO supported by physical evidence, then you have something.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
You need physical evidence linking to her first, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT.
I edited my posting to include a link which lists all the evidence brought forth.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 07:18:29 PMIt shouldn't have happened AT ALL! Once you're acquitted, that's IT!
Quote from: MrBogosity
No, you can't. Because then you'd have 10 innocent people imprisoned for every 1 guilty person that goes free, instead of the other way around.
I really don't see how that would follow. If you have an independent judge analyzing whether new evidence justifies a re-trial, how does that lead to relatively more innocent people in prison?
Th only argument I can think of is that trials inevitably lead to false rulings, including the conviction of innocents. But if that's the problem, then we'd have to stop enforcing the law period.
Quite frankly, I'd take the Italian legal system over the American one every day of the week. Despite my own prejudices regarding the Italian political system and the corruption within it, their legal system seems to be one of the most trustworthy ones.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 07:25:10 PM
I'm sure there are transcripts, in fact I know there are. Some of the taps are even on YouTube. But I don't speak Italian, so it's difficult for me to sieve through all of that. I followed the story from Germany and here we got most of the same coverage as people in the US did. So at first I was just as enraged about it. But once I dug a little deeper, I saw that it really wasn't about science but about corruption.
A quick google search provided me with this English language article, talking about the wiretaps and also linking to some audio files:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html?full=true#.UvAxenlPuTo
OK, I'm listening to the transcript: it shows me that Bartaloso is a real scumbag: ordering her to basically stitch up the whole operation. he's also an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand the science of earthquakes.
what I find disturbing in the implication that the scientists were basically there to make the whole thing look legitimate, rather than a meaningful investigation: a show of giving a shit, rather than risking (in his mind's eye) the panic of the population. There is little implication that the scientists themselves were bribed--simply that they're going to be in this meeting to "reassure the public". considering they were largely forbidden to speak to the public, this would not have been difficult to do. without a full transcript of the conversation with the seismologist, I cannot infer much more (it would reveal if he were indeed bribed).
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 07:42:20 PM
I agree that the behavior ALONE cannot possibly be considered evidence. But if it fits into a larger narrative
Then it's STILL bullshit. Narratives ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Juries might THINK they are, but more's the pity.
Quotethat is (crucially) ALSO supported by physical evidence,
By PHYSICAL evidence, of which--again--there is NONE.
QuoteI edited my posting to include a link which lists all the evidence brought forth.
Yes, let's take a look...alibi...interrogation...phone calls...wow, more than halfway down the page to get to actual physical evidence.
And what's the first? The knife which YOU YOURSELF admitted was bogus evidence. And the rest is just as false. NONE of Amanda's DNA was found on or near the victim, there was NONE of Amanda's blood, etc. They THOUGHT there was at one time, but they turned out to be contaminated samples. So if this is what you're going on, no wonder you're confused about it!
And what about Guede? TONS of his DNA on AND IN the victim, and convicted which was upheld on ALL appeals...I mean, WHAT???
Okay, let's think about this: given that nothing's impossible (p(H)>0), we have to consider it a nonzero possibility that Knox somehow cleaned up all of her DNA while leaving a LOT of Guede's, AND the police basically ended up fingering her out of blind luck; not bloody likely, to say the least.
OR, Guede killed her after all, which is extremely probable given what all of the evidence says.
Not bloody likely ÷ extremely probable = a completely shitty Likelihood Ratio!
QuoteI really don't see how that would follow. If you have an independent judge analyzing whether new evidence justifies a re-trial, how does that lead to relatively more innocent people in prison?
How would it not? Government gets more cracks at it whenever they want. And there's no such thing as an "independent judge." Judges are just politicians in black robes.
QuoteQuite frankly, I'd take the Italian legal system over the American one every day of the week. Despite my own prejudices regarding the Italian political system and the corruption within it, their legal system seems to be one of the most trustworthy ones.
I guess if rampant corruption and injustice is "trustworthy" by you...
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 08:10:32 PM
And the rest is just as false. NONE of Amanda's DNA was found on or near the victim, there was NONE of Amanda's blood, etc. They THOUGHT there was at one time, but they turned out to be contaminated samples. So if this is what you're going on, no wonder you're confused about it!
Well, that's the gist of it. I agree, if all those samples were bogus, then there isn't much of a case left. On the other hand, if all those samples are legit, then she sure as hell was in on it.
I don't know how you can assess that it's all bogus. I mean, I even agree with you, but it's not open and shut, merely that the doubts regarding the samples are too big for me personally. I have the feeling that you're approaching this from a very biased position. I mean how do you explain those two guilty verdicts then? Are the Italians too stupid to weigh the evidence and apply the law? Are they corrupt (and if so, why, and who paid them)? Do they simply want to stick it to the US and Amanda was their proxy? Or did they actually believe that they had a solid case against her and for good reason? Do I have to explain to you how conspiracy theories work? Try to take one step back from your American-centric perspective, from the American media with their axes that they grind and the biases they have. You like to apply Bayesian mathematics, so why don't you do it by taking everything into account, rather than only after you decided to throw out all the evidence?
You sound like one of this creationists who dismiss all the evidence for evolution after reading on their favorite website that it's all bogus anyway. Ok, that was mean, I'm sorry, it's not THAT bad. ::)
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 08:10:32 PM
How would it not?
Because the same rules as with any trial apply. So the chances of someone innocent being convicted should be the same.
However, if we apply strict standards, the chance would in fact decrease, as only solid evidence could justify a re-trial.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 08:10:32 PMGovernment gets more cracks at it whenever they want.
No they would not. They'd have nothing to do with it. It would be firmly located within the judiciary branch, just as the court system should be anyhow...(unfortunately in the US there are many overlaps, but that doesn't mean that there have to be...again, maybe you should take a step back from your American-centric perspective).
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 08:10:32 PMAnd there's no such thing as an "independent judge." Judges are just politicians in black robes.
That's what I thought. Sorry, but if that's what you think, then you should be advocating to get rid of courts altogether. Either judges are biased by definition, then they're no good no matter if it's a first or a second trial.
Or judges can at least in theory be impartial, then again it doesn't matter if we're talking about a first or a second trial.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 03, 2014, 08:10:32 PMI guess if rampant corruption and injustice is "trustworthy" by you...
Certainly more trustworthy than the US system. I'm pretty sure that the "rampant" corruption and injustice (citation needed) in the Italian judiciary system are far lower than in the US...I mean you guys elect your prosecutors which opens up the entire system to abuse, guys who are "tough on crime" get elected and individual rights suffer (hooray, who can achieve more death sentences?), then the jury system opens it up to storytelling being more important than facts, etc.
At least in Italy, even Berlusconi was unable to bribe his way out of the courts...oh yeah, and they don't have capital punishment either. If Amanda was an Italian student in front of an American jury, she'd probably be on death row right now, whereas in real life, she can do interviews from the comfort of her home.
Of course the Italian judiciary system isn't prefect. Wherever humans are at work, mistakes happen. But the safeguards within it seem to be much better than in the US. So yeah, if I was falsely accused of being a murderer and I could choose between the US and Italy, I'd definitely stand trial in Italy.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 03, 2014, 07:47:34 PM
OK, I'm listening to the transcript: it shows me that Bartaloso is a real scumbag: ordering her to basically stitch up the whole operation. he's also an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand the science of earthquakes.
what I find disturbing in the implication that the scientists were basically there to make the whole thing look legitimate, rather than a meaningful investigation: a show of giving a shit, rather than risking (in his mind's eye) the panic of the population. There is little implication that the scientists themselves were bribed--simply that they're going to be in this meeting to "reassure the public". considering they were largely forbidden to speak to the public, this would not have been difficult to do. without a full transcript of the conversation with the seismologist, I cannot infer much more (it would reveal if he were indeed bribed).
Most of my information stems from that detailed radio program I told you about. I even tracked it down, unfortunately, they only make their programs available for a couple of months on their website, so I couldn't re-listen to it.
It's been a while but I think it was pretty clear from the wire taps that the scientists knew what they were getting into, they weren't just there in the background in order to give the press conference and the bogus claims made a more sciency feel.
Though I don't remember if money was promised or if it was about grants for their research, or simply a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
In any case, as you can see, it wasn't about "not predicting an earthquake", but about misleading the public due to political pressure.
Quote from: thalamay on February 03, 2014, 11:36:31 PM
I mean how do you explain those two guilty verdicts then?
1) Don't have to; that's not actual primary evidence of her guilt
2) It's easily explained by the judge and jury not having any more knowledge of what constitutes primary evidence than you've displayed here. DNA is all sciencey and esoteric; we're social creatures who respond more to the psychological things you've pointed out and that the website you linked to than actual physical evidence. The physical evidence is just there to shore up the conclusion made from the social cues.
It's human nature, but it's a huge problem: if you start with the conclusion and come up with evidence to justify it, nothing matters. You were either right or wrong before you even started, and no amount of evidence and arguments you come up with after that can change that fact.
QuoteYou like to apply Bayesian mathematics, so why don't you do it by taking everything into account, rather than only after you decided to throw out all the evidence?
I have been. And the Bayesian conclusion points to an extremely high probability of Guede being the murderer and an extremely low probability of Knox/Sollecito.
QuoteNo they would not. They'd have nothing to do with it. It would be firmly located within the judiciary branch,
The judiciary branch is PART of government! Not just in America, but EVERYWHERE!
QuoteI mean you guys elect your prosecutors which opens up the entire system to abuse,
Prosecutors who are appointed do no better. Mike Nifong, the disbarred prosecutor behind the false accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case, was appointed.
Schiff gives his side of the story in video form.
[yt]F9LNP-yXXUc[/yt]
Quote from: D on February 06, 2014, 09:16:17 AM
Schiff gives his side of the story in video form.
[yt]F9LNP-yXXUc[/yt]
It'd still be better if TDS would just release the uncut interview.
EDIT: "They don't think there's anything wrong with theft, so why should they think there's anything wrong with lying?"* Wow, so many things just clicked into place now that he's put it that way!
*(Paraphrase, but I think that's close.)