Feeky Magee

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 09:56 AM) Trout

My hope is that either Trea Turner excels enough to make it a true top 3, or else if there is a big drop-off and then a lot of roughly equal players, that the Sox take an under-slot guy and spread it throughout the draft.

I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says.

Could potentially be a nice excuse to name Lindstrom closer to save the Sox millions in Jones's arbitration and make Lindstrom attractive trade bait.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 06:39 PM) Hoffman with a pretty average start to the season 6.2, 3ER, 2BB, 6K Hopefully he puts up huge numbers this year Surely if he puts up huge numbers this year he goes to the Marlins?

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:03 PM) I would be fine with Ackley or Franklin, problem is we don't have a position open for either one. Doesn't matter if we trade Viciedo or ADA, the one left will play LF so there's no room. Would love to see Ackley or Franklin at 2B but then we have to find a team willing to trade for Bekham. Maybe this isn't such a match for the Sox. If you can get Franklin for Viciedo/ADA or anything close, Gordon Beckham being around does not stop you from making that deal.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:30 PM) We have enough outfielders. He's also mediocre, 33, coming off a PED suspension, probably gonna get something like $12-15m over 3 years, and would require us to give up the 3rd pick of the 2nd round. It's a terrible idea and thankfully not going to happen.

Does anyone know what the rebound rates are for the type of surgery Danks had? With TJ, it's supposed to be one rebound year after your time out, is this similar?

QUOTE (Leonard of Berwyn @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:40 AM) Trade suggestion: White Sox send John Danks and Alejandro DeAza to the Mariners for Nick Franklin, Dustin Ackley and Jesus Montero. We then flip those three to the Angels for Mike Trout and a free hummer for every Sox fan. It's foolproof.

I wonder what Ervin Santana's favourite beer is

QUOTE (BPK @ Feb 8, 2014 -> 05:23 PM) I'm pretty sure this is my favorite post that I've read on this board. Thanks, that's very kind of you to say.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 6, 2014 -> 01:14 AM) Her blood was found in the bathroom of the apartment she lived in. Im still not seeing how this is beyond a reasonable doubt murder conviction. Was her blood found on Kercher? Was her dna under fingernails etc? What evidence do we have to tie Knox to the actual murder, besides for you dont believe her story and think shes lying. Because thats enough to convict for murder. Her fresh blood, together with the blood of the recently murdered Kercher. Coupled with the evidence of multiple attackers the masses of circumstantial evidence - the false accusal, the busted alibi, the staged break-in, the behaviour to the postal police, the phone calls,; couple with the even stronger masses of both direct and circumstantial evidence against Solecitto, was enough for, I believe, four judges and 12 lay judges to find them guilty. Bearing in mind that it would be an enormous stretch to envisage Solecitto being involved but not Knox.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 10:46 PM) What large body of evidence suggests Knox committed murder? Every piece of evidence you presented has suggested Sollecito's involvement. What direct evidence was there that Knox killed Kercher? Not Sollecito's footprint or dna on a knife, but something to connect Knox. Even if Knox lied about everything, thats not enough proof to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt". And its interesting you said its odd behavior to s*** in someones bathroom and take a shower, isnt even odder behavior to do that after committing murder? I mean you have to admit that the facts are pretty odd and there is really very little evidence that Knox committed murder. Perhaps obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, but I just dont see any hard evidence that Knox killed her. Knox's blood was found in the bathroom. And the point of the s*** is not that Knox did it and it's weird, rather that someone else (Guede) did and she left it there because she knew there was a body in the house (according to her story she didn't know this at the time she claimed she was doing her hair) and she wished to have evidence present that she was not the only one there. According to Knox, she entered the bathroom, saw the feces which had been there overnight, and proceded to blow-dry her hair without flushing the toilet. The police reported that she had a mini panic attack when she thought it had disappeared until it was confirmed it had sunk beneath easy sight.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 05:46 PM) Show me how the K/BB is correlated to wins. My point was more that a player who concentrates on himself individually will be more likely to help the team to win, but in a general sense, out of the 81 qualified starting pitchers, the top 10 in K/BB finished 8th, 4th, 5th, 15th, 9th, 66th, 6th, 1st, 18th and 2nd in WAR. Dan Haren (battling shoulder injuries) aside, that's pretty strong correlation between K/BB and wins. The only pitchers to make the top 10 in WAR outside of the top 10 in K/BB were Anibal Sanchez (17th of 81), Justin Verlander (42nd) and Yu Darvish (24th).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 06:34 PM) I never said they had to prove motive. Im just saying that you arent going to convince a jury that someone committed a murder for "no reason", you generally have to convince them that there is a good motive. Not having a motive, is one of the easiest ways for a defense attorney to create doubt. And just as an fyi, I get paid to try cases, so Im not basing it on tv. When you have a jury of 12 people, its hard to convince them that someone, with no history of random violence, committed murder for no good reason. Its also hard to convince a jury when you dont have 1 story, thats why I predicted Casey Anthony would be acquitted. You cant do a shotgun approach in criminal law, it works in civil where you can plead in the alternative and the burden of evidence is preponderance of the evidence (what is most likely true). But in criminal court its basically an admission that there is some doubt. How can you have no doubt, if the prosecution cant tell you exactly how/why/where/when/who committed the murder? You cant and thats why Knox's conviction is suspect. Right, but when there is a large body of evidence suggesting they were directly involved the murder, failure to establish a watertight motive does not mean her conviction was suspect. It's clearly not admission that there's reasonable doubt in this case as the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and two courts found her guilty under that burden.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 05:04 PM) old guy rant/ I know I'm old but I really don't like this idea. Too many sports are becoming obsessed with the individual athlete and not the team. I know it helps the average fan become interested and identify with them (again hero worship of athletes is a bad thing IMHO). However, I prefer the promotion of the team not the individual. I root for the game of baseball and the White Sox not an individual on the team. Now that I think about it, this is the problem I have with too many of the "advanced stats." They were created so the player could get paid through arbitration to show that even if the team did poorly, I deserve more money. Pitchers worry more about a quality start or the K/BB ratio instead of focusing on the team win. Interesting that this just occurred to me. Thanks for starting the thread. /old guy rant young guy polite reply/ The pitcher concentrating on his K/BB ratio will help his team to have a better chance of winning /young guy polite reply

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 05:33 PM) Great argument, but you still havent addressed the actual legal issue: 1) What is the burden of proof for criminal conviction in Italy? In the US Knox would not have been found guilty. There is no motive, there is no clear cut explanation of what happened. In the US we arent supposed to convict people on maybes, its supposed to be definite. In 1 concise statement you should be able to tell me: Who, why, when and where about the crime. If you cant, its likely an innocent verdict. It doesnt matter if 1,2,3 are plausible, at least not in the US. Its not the defendants responsibility to prove their innocence, its the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And thats the system the US uses and thats why when you are arguing about Italian law, you might want to tell us what the standard/burden is, because otherwise we are going to apply the US standard, which pretty much makes youre entire argument irrelevant. Fortunately for my argument, in Italy, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: any doubt on the defendant’s guilt will resolve in an acquittal, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly affirms that guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having to prove the defendant's motive is overrated due to TV shows. Criminal law states that whilst motive can be important during investigation and sentencing, courts are not generally concerned with it when determining guilt of a criminal defendant, and prosecutors need not prove the defendant's motive. They need to prove intent, but not motive.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Others argue that the measurements were faulty and included the second toe as part of the big toe. If that error is adjusted, then the measurements match Guede's very well. This is still at random because 1) it doesn't actually match the stab wounds and 2) there's no reason to believe that the murder weapon would be in that drawer or in his apartment at all. But if they're convinced that he did it in a big sex party with Knox and Lumumba oops I mean Guede now, hey, here's a big knife, that's probably the murder weapon! Despite early reports to the contrary (thanks media circus and Italian justice system that invites juror contamination!), no receipts or evidence were ever produced that either of them had purchased bleach that morning. There's no indication that Knox's apartment was cleaned with bleach, either, otherwise there wouldn't be such copious amounts of Guede's DNA and blood trails all over the place. I have plenty of criticism of the US legal system, but my (admittedly limited) exposure to the Italian system really does make it seem like a big joke comparatively. Double-jeopardy is a horrible idea. Whether or not the break-in was staged is, like every other piece of evidence, very debatable and the prosecution's theories are not the most plausible. The same goes for multiple attackers. Knox's DNA was found in Kercher's bathroom, but not her blood. Not exactly shocking. Knox did have a bunch of bulls*** rambling at first, but false confessions or confusion are hardly unique to her. I note that you are yet to respond to most of the points I've made. The knife didn't match wounds; the DNA analysis on it was garbage (as found by independent investigators appointed by the judge); the prosecution's many theories don't actually make sense; Guede's blood and prints are all over the damn place but there's no reliable physical evidence linking Knox; the bra clasp was left on-scene for weeks on end, kicked around and improperly handled; the judge's summary report relied very heavily on "probably" and supposition and was light on actual, plain facts. - Even if we're to take the argument about the police confusing the second big toe and big toe, for which I cannot find any evidence, how do you explain the length and width of the metatarsus and plantar arches being a 100% match virtually across the board for Solecitto, and off by large amounts on Guede. You can't imagine an extra metatarsus like you can an extra toe. - The knife matched the fatal wound in Kercher's throat. When presented with the news that Kercher's DNA was found on the knife, Solecitto claimed he had accidentally pricked her on the hand when they were cooking together and she had bled onto the knife. Kercher had never been to his apartment. Why would Solecitto lie if it was an impossibility this was the murder weapon? - I didn't say anything about receipts. I said that there were two bottles of bleach that Solecitto's cleaning lady said she had not purchased and were not there before, and that Knox had been seen in the cleaning section of a shop at 7.45am when she claimed to be asleep. - You say that the theories about the fake break-in and multiple attackers are debatable but say absolutely nothing about why this is the case. You didn't address a single one of my points a) to e) about why it was faked: QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) 5. The conclusive evidence that the break-in was staged is as follows: a) the glass from the window was all on top of the scattered items, therefore the glass was broken after everything was scattered, b) the point of entry made no sense, being both the most exposed and most difficult point of entry in the whole house, c) to enter through the window required one to walk on grass first, it was a wet night, and there were no grass or mud stains at all on the wall or windowsill and none of the vegetation was trampled, d) the windowsill was covered in glass, despite an entry requiring a burglar to rest his knees upon it, and surely brush the glass away first, e) the scattering was mostly clothing, with valuables left in plain sight. As for the multiple attacker theory, you didn't address how it was possible for Guede to have held her down ensuring no defensive wounds and stabbed her with two different knives on different parts of the body and attempt to strangle her all at once. - You claim Knox's DNA was found in the bathroom but not her blood. This is not true. Knox's DNA was found in the bathroom as well as her blood. Knox's blood was found on the top of the wash basin, whilst a mixture of the two women's DNA (likely but not definitively blood) was found in 3 other places. To explain this away Knox said that she showered in the bathroom 12 hours later and bled from a recently pierced ear. 1. Do you think Solecitto's claim that he accidentally stabbed Kercher's hand whilst they were cooking together is plausible? 2. Do you think Knox's claim that she bled from her recently pierced ear in the bathroom 12 hours after the murder is plausible? 3. Do you think it's plausible to explain away glass being found on top of all the scattered items from the "break-in", quite apart from all the other evidence it was faked?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 12:19 PM) Others strongly disagree and say that the measurements were faulty. They say that the correct measurements match Rudy's, as do the show prints found elsewhere in the apartment. It's only a "near-perfect match" if you accept the prosecution's measurements without question. Because the "test" that was run was run in an uncertified lab using non-standard techniques and even then, could only get a partial match at a low probability. The knife was essentially chosen at random from S.'s kitchen, even though there wasn't any blood, it didn't really match the blood prints or the stab wounds and there was no particular reason to select that knife. The theory that Knox was carrying a large kitchen knife around in her purse for...some reason? doesn't really make sense, either. http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda...ory?id=20738813 I don't know how anyone can think the DNA evidence, or really any of the physical evidence, is so air-tight. The "mounds of evidence" are highly questionable to many people, even if you personally believe they prove their guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The facts are that the police work was shoddy, the prosecution's scenarios didn't make sense and frequently changed, and the forensic analysis is dubious. There's no actual, hard evidence linking them to the crime, only some circumstantial stuff, the Italian media's circus that fueled/was fueled by the prosecution, and Italy's laughable legal system. - Those are not the prosecution's measurements. They are the police's measurements. The court decided it was Solecitto's footprint and not possibly Guede's. Please explain to me how it could possibly be Guede's with undershoots of 30% and overshoots of 50%. Alternatively, please show me measurements that are more accurate than the ones the police took. - The knife was not chosen at random. It was chosen because it was the only knife in the drawer that could have been the murder weapon (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/12020202.jpg) and smelled of bleach. The same bleach as the two bottles found in Solecitto's apartment which the cleaning lady said should not have been there and were not purchased by her. Meanwhile Knox had been seen outside a store at 7.45am waiting for it to open and went straight to the cleaning section, despite claiming to have been in bed asleep with Solecitto at the time, a claim contradicted by phone and internet records. - You talk about the Italian media circus, yet every report you link to is from the US media. Knox's parents have been charged with libel for comments made in the US media about her interrogation which have proven to be false. Calling Italy's legal system laughable is, well, laughable. Particularly when you come from a country where someone can commit a murder, get away with it, write a book basically detailing how they did it, and not be re-charged with the crime. I also note you are yet to challenge or acknowledge the evidence about the staged break-in, the timing of the call to the police, the multiple attackers, Knox's blood in Kercher's bathroom or Knox and Solecitto's bulls*** alibi.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) The footprints found in the blood didn't match their shoes. The DNA in the knife was a questionable match. You still have the prosecution inventing dumb scenario after dumb scenario. You listed a bunch of things above, but some, like the witness accounts, are very very questionable and others have faced serious scrutiny. The latest idea was that they argued about cleanliness, Knox got so made she stabbed her, then her boyfriend stabbed her.oh and also this other guy who confessed the murder also happened be there, for some reason. If the physical evidence really is as strong as you say, why such a ridiculous scenario? Why invent a new scenario for the re trial? - The bloody footprint on the bathmat was a near-perfect match to Raffaele Solecitto: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/imag...print_table.png - I don't know how you can call the DNA on the knife a questionable match. Are you basing this on studying of the profile analysis or on what the defence says? Studying the profile analysis will show you a perfect match. - The possibility that the murder was sparked by an argument about cleanliness was a scenario the prosecutor asked the court to consider. It was mentioned as a possibility during a 10-hour closing argument, and was absolutely nowhere near the cornerstone of his argument. Trying to explain away the mounds of evidence by saying "if the evidence is so strong then why did the prosecution do [insert small prosecution misstep or unproven theory here]" is a common method used when the evidence cannot be explained away, attempting to bundle it together and then tie it to something unrelated. Really the only way to explain the evidence away is to explain it away, but it cannot be done, because it is plentiful and damning, hence why you have not attempted to do so, in the case of most of the multiple specifics listed above.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:31 AM) Well, my family lived in Dublin. Ballsbridge, to be exact. But when we visited we traveled all around the outside of the country. Went to counties Cork, Kerry, Kilkenny, Waterford, Gallway, Limerick, all over. We saw Cliffs of Mohr, Blarney Stone, Ring of Kerry, Guinness Factory (although I stayed home for some reason that day), and a bunch of ruined castles. I've lived in exactly half of those counties. And if you were at the Cliffs of Moher, that makes it over half, because they're in Clare! West Cork and Kerry are stunning parts of the world.

The Sox have been spamming this on their Twitter whilst the Dodgers haven't mentioned it at all and Paulie still leads just 52-48. Gotta think one tweet from the Dodgers and Paulie's f***ed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) Are you an Italian prosecutor or? I think this article goes over just how crappy the 'evidence' against either of them was. Guede? Yeah, he seems obviously guilty as f***. But there's nothing but (questionable) circumstantial evidence tying Knox or her boyfriend to the crime. edit: as that article references, the Italian high court that ordered the retrial said that the new trial should focus on the "sex games gone wrong" aspect, which was always dumb and loopy and completely unsupported. And the re-trial introduced yet another fun scenario about arguments over cleanliness that resulted in Knox and her boyfriend stabbing Kercher to death while Guede watched. edit2: and it's really questionable whether or not the knife found actually had Kercher's DNA, and it didn't fit many of the stab-wounds (hence the new and exciting multi-knife theory!) edit3: what's the conclusive evidence that the break-in was staged? from what I've read, they found glass on the inside, and concluded that the windows must have been broken from the inside. Are Italian police and prosecutors really that incompetent? If you break a window from the outside, most glass will fly inside. That article is an absolute nonsense and written by the man who co-authored Solecitto's book about his account of events. 1. There's lots of evidence tying Knox and Solecitto to the crime. I have listed very specific ones above which you haven't addressed. Can you explain away the phone records, CCTV, internet records, etc.? 2. You say Guede is guilty as f***, how do you separate this from Knox and Solecitto? The absolute overwhelming evidence is that there were multiple attackers (lack of defensive wounds, injuries consistent with being held down, angle of wounds, etc.). Who then assisted Guede? Perhaps the people whose blood and footprints were found in Kercher's bathroom (Knox and Solecitto)? Also, Kercher's door was locked, with the pattern of Guede's bloody footprints making it impossible that he locked the door. 3. The knife absolutely had Kercher's DNA (http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Videos/Posters/DNA_superimposed.jpg). The only question is how it got there, with the defence suggesting that DNA transfer was possible, without suggesting how this might have happened. When faced with the evidence of Kercher's DNA being on the knife, Solecitto claimed that they had all been cooking together and he had accidentally pricked Kercher's hand with the knife and got her blood on it, a fairly obvious lie. 4. How is the multi-knife theory new? 5. The conclusive evidence that the break-in was staged is as follows: a) the glass from the window was all on top of the scattered items, therefore the glass was broken after everything was scattered, b) the point of entry made no sense, being both the most exposed and most difficult point of entry in the whole house, c) to enter through the window required one to walk on grass first, it was a wet night, and there were no grass or mud stains at all on the wall or windowsill and none of the vegetation was trampled, d) the windowsill was covered in glass, despite an entry requiring a burglar to rest his knees upon it, and surely brush the glass away first, e) the scattering was mostly clothing, with valuables left in plain sight.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2014 -> 06:55 AM) IIRC, the knife was a kitchen knife that had been in the apartment for a long time. Not exactly surprising that the DNA of both of the people who lived there would be on it. The bra clasp wasn't collected until something like six weeks after the initial investigation and was just left lying on the floor that time. The prosecution's eye-witness was someone whom they routinely paid for such testimony and wasn't exactly reliable. edit: so, assuming the rest is true, why did the prosecution have to come up with (multiple) outlandish theories about the motive behind the crime and how it took place? The way you laid it out, it should have been very simple and straight forward. It was in *Solecitto's* apartment. Why would it have Meredith Kercher's DNA on it? We know Kercher and Knox didn't get along, why would Kercher be in Knox's boyfriend's apartment? That the bra was not collected for 6 weeks is pretty shoddy but ultimately has no effect. It could be relevant if we're talking about DNA disappearing, but DNA just doesn't magic itself onto something over time. It was a sealed crime scene, there's no innocent explanation for Solecitto's DNA making his way onto the bra clasp. What multiple outlandish theories about the motive behind the crime and how it took place did the prosecution come up with? There was disinformation that they claimed it was a Satanic motive, however there's no suggestion of this at all anywhere in any of the court documents. There was disinformation that they hugely played up the sexual element, however they simply noted that she had been digitally penetrated and did not base any large amount of their case on that information. Knox's family have been responsible for a huge amount of disinformation about the case. They hired a PR firm days after the murder. Her parents are actually facing charges for claiming in a newspaper that for her false accusal of Lumumba she was interrogated for 9 hours (shortly after stating on TV that it was 14), given no food or water, hit around the head and given no interpreter. All of which are either completely false, or in the case of the hit around the head, a detail-light allegation which came way after the face despite ample chance to say it before. In fact, she was interviewed for at the very most 2 hours (likely about an hour and a quarter) with an interpreter present and was given water, tea and items from a vending machine. This was on an evening where the police hadn't even requested her presence at the station and only questioned here after Sollecito, whom she accompanied, claimed she asked him to lie for her when faced with inconsistencies in her account. The only thing that will happen to her parents if the charges are proven by the way are issues with travel to Italy, a small price to pay for being a key part of the offensive that has America on her side and will doubtless lead to heavy pressure not to extradite. If anyone was guilty of coming up with outlandish theories about how the crime took place, it was both defences, who pursued a single-attacker theory, was was wildly unsupported by the evidence. Ultimately there's a lot of evidence against her and Solecitto and the only way to dance around this is to speak in generalities about the prosecution and procedural errors. Because when you get into the specifics, it looks terrible for Knox and Solecitto.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) Everything I've read about the prosecution's case has been pretty ridiculous. She won't be extradited from the US, but she probably can't set foot in thy eu. There's a large amount of evidence against her and Sollecito. - Knox falsely implicated someone else and did not withdraw the implication until it was proven he had no involvement. - Knox and Sollecito clearly lied several times about what they were doing at various times the night of the murder: confirmed by internet usage, phone calls, witness sightings etc. - Knox said she became panicked when she called Kercher and her phone "rang and rang" but she didn't answer it. Her mobile phone data shows her two calls to Kercher lasted a total of 3 and 4 seconds, right after each other, and she never called again. Seems like she just wanted to register the fact that she'd called Kercher more than once but didn't realise the amount of time would be recorded. - If you're to believe Knox's story, she came back to her house to find the front door wide open, window smashed, place ransacked, blood in the main bathroom and a s*** in her roommates toilet. She then decides not to call the police, but instead to take a shower and do her hair in her roommates' bathroom without flushing the toilet. This would be exceptionally strange behaviour. - According to Knox and Sollecito, after she discussed it with him, they'd called the police and said they were very worried because there'd been a break-in and her roommates' room was locked. They claimed they did so before the postal police arrived (despite CCTV, phone and witness evidence all suggesting otherwise). Even if you're to believe that, in what should have been a very lucky break for them, the postal police arrive at the house before the regular police they called. Contrary to what was said on the phone, Knox told the postal police that Kercher always locked her door and it was nothing to be worried about. This was after the postal police tell her they've recovered Kercher's phone in suspicious circumstances, something which should have panicked her further about Kercher's well-being if she was telling the truth. - The knife found at Sollecito's apartment exactly fitted wounds on Kercher and had Kercher and Knox's DNA present on it. - Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp of Kercher, which was removed after her death. - There was conclusive evidence that the break-in was staged, something which would have only needed to be done by someone with access to the house attempting to throw the police off the scent. Evidence suggests convincingly that Guede did not stage the burglary, and therefore it had to be Knox and Sollecito.