The reason this case is interesting as a test of rationality [...] compelling evidence against Guede.
That much I understand. And I did read a lot of the previous discussions. But just to take a random example, rolf_nelson brought up how DNA of random people couldn’t have easily gotten onto the bra clasp, that there had to be some more direct contact. And, RS’s DNA is clearly on it.
Where was that specific point already addressed in previous discussion?
This CNN story covers some of the doubts around the handling of the bra and the validity of the DNA results:
Bremner says that evidence on the clasp is fundamentally flawed, like much from the crime scene collection, calling the work “Fellini forensics.”
“In the [crime scene] video, you can see it went from being white in color to nearly black because it got so dirty being moved around,” Bremner said of the clasp, noting that tainted the only evidence that placed Sollecito at the scene.
Here’s a source for the ‘three unidentified individuals’ DNA’ claim:
The other key plank of the prosecution’s DNA evidence related to a clasp severed from Meredith’s bra that was found at the scene.
This was said to have Sollecito’s DNA on it. But the defence has long challenged its evidential value because it was not recovered from the floor of the victim’s bedroom until 47 days after the murder.
During that time, they claim, it was contaminated—an argument apparently supported by the fact that the rest of the bra did not show any such DNA traces.
That police could have missed the clasp for so long is also put forward as being indicative of the way in which the murder investigation was carried out.
Video footage by detectives on November 3, 2007, two days after the murder, shows the bra clasp on the floor of Meredith’s room, next to where her body was found. It had been cut from the bra she was wearing when she was attacked.
But it was not until December 18, when police revisited the crime scene, that they found the clasp at a different location in the room and finally collected it as evidence.
It was then subjected to testing, which revealed microscopic traces of DNA belonging to Sollecito as well as at least three other unidentified people.
This DNA test result is central to the prosecution’s case, because no other evidence links Sollecito or Knox to the room where the murder took place.
Emphasis mine. There is sufficient doubt around the DNA evidence to render it largely irrelevant in light of the prior probabilities for this kind of crime.
Okay, thanks—I wasn’t sure if the rolf_nelson’s claim about the three other people was the consensus at this point. I assumed he said it because he had found a good refutation of that point [1]. Confusion resolved. Disappointment with rolf_nelson’s posts on this matter understood.
[1]Note: This is not a common practice of mine, but due to the factors at play for this specific discussion.
I wasn’t endorsing the general dislike of rolf_nelson, just saying why I understand the hostility now. And the issue is about more than just his top level post, but the broader exchange between him and komponisto.
(And why do you insist on the underscore?)
ETA: Come on, it’s a joke, people. I criticized wedrifid for simply following my usage (plus making it the possessive form), even though I use that exact form all the time. I was jokingly making it look like it’s wedrifid who insists on the practice of adding underscores. Get it? Ha ha? No? Okay then...
ETA: I notice that many people have since picked up the practice of referring to other users with their exact username, and replacing spaces therein with underscores. I’m not going to say it was because of me … but I had been doing that since way back into the OB days, when no one else was …
I’m confused. I just added ’s post in this instance. More generally I tend to refer to a user by either their username or their first name. Maybe a last name instead if the reference was towards a more formal academic contribution.
It’s worth considering who’s at fault when nobody “gets” a joke.
The purpose of humor is to entertain or communicate in some form; if a joke flops with every member of its target audience, I don’t think you can blame said audience without lowering yourself to the standards of smug postmodernist writers.
Tangential: Nietzsche could conceivably be accused of this attitude, but he was really aiming to discourage lightweight thinkers from reading and misunderstanding his work. Obviously, it didn’t work.
Zack_M_Davis got the joke, as did everyone who modded him up. Only those who modded up the above wedrifid, and down my “whoosh” comment, didn’t get the joke.
I think a sufficient fraction of the audience got it. wedrifid was an outlier on this one.
That much I understand. And I did read a lot of the previous discussions. But just to take a random example, rolf_nelson brought up how DNA of random people couldn’t have easily gotten onto the bra clasp, that there had to be some more direct contact. And, RS’s DNA is clearly on it.
Where was that specific point already addressed in previous discussion?
Here for one.
This CNN story covers some of the doubts around the handling of the bra and the validity of the DNA results:
Here’s a source for the ‘three unidentified individuals’ DNA’ claim:
Emphasis mine. There is sufficient doubt around the DNA evidence to render it largely irrelevant in light of the prior probabilities for this kind of crime.
Okay, thanks—I wasn’t sure if the rolf_nelson’s claim about the three other people was the consensus at this point. I assumed he said it because he had found a good refutation of that point [1]. Confusion resolved. Disappointment with rolf_nelson’s posts on this matter understood.
[1]Note: This is not a common practice of mine, but due to the factors at play for this specific discussion.
ETA: Changed phrasing to be less personal.
Can we say “disappointment with rolf_nelson’s post”? I feel more comfortable with that.
I wasn’t endorsing the general dislike of rolf_nelson, just saying why I understand the hostility now. And the issue is about more than just his top level post, but the broader exchange between him and komponisto.
(And why do you insist on the underscore?)
ETA: Come on, it’s a joke, people. I criticized wedrifid for simply following my usage (plus making it the possessive form), even though I use that exact form all the time. I was jokingly making it look like it’s wedrifid who insists on the practice of adding underscores. Get it? Ha ha? No? Okay then...
Who are you and what have you done with Silas??
LOL! :-)
ETA: I notice that many people have since picked up the practice of referring to other users with their exact username, and replacing spaces therein with underscores. I’m not going to say it was because of me … but I had been doing that since way back into the OB days, when no one else was …
I’m confused. I just added ’s post in this instance. More generally I tend to refer to a user by either their username or their first name. Maybe a last name instead if the reference was towards a more formal academic contribution.
whoosh! ;-)
It’s worth considering who’s at fault when nobody “gets” a joke.
The purpose of humor is to entertain or communicate in some form; if a joke flops with every member of its target audience, I don’t think you can blame said audience without lowering yourself to the standards of smug postmodernist writers.
Tangential: Nietzsche could conceivably be accused of this attitude, but he was really aiming to discourage lightweight thinkers from reading and misunderstanding his work. Obviously, it didn’t work.
Zack_M_Davis got the joke, as did everyone who modded him up. Only those who modded up the above wedrifid, and down my “whoosh” comment, didn’t get the joke.
I think a sufficient fraction of the audience got it. wedrifid was an outlier on this one.
Updated phrasing to a happy medium.