Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

No. There is a fundamental mistake. Your reasoning is just wrong. Statistics work actually, the other way around.

Does this actually work Machiavelli? Does saying that up is down and white is black long enough that people actually buy into this nonsense?

Since when are you mathematician? There isn't one on this planet that would back your argument up. It is total and unadulterated nonsense.

I will not discuss Lalli's autopsy, albeit to say the intrinsic probability of error about assessing the duodenum content is just not zero. Because the duodenum is not a closed container and material can be naturally "missed".
But I don't consider this important. You do consider it the only important point, but I don't.

Of course you don't consider it important, because if you acknowledged evidence that proved Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence as this does, you would have to also acknowledge that you are wrong and you are incapable of owning up to your own mistakes. But don't feel bad about that, this seems to be culturally inherent in the Italian psyche.

Instead, I disagree from your reasoning and I point at the fundamental mistake in interpreting statistics.
It is true that 114 years is too close to a maximum extension, kind of physical threshold that can't be crossed due to telomer exhaustion; there are no further values beyond that.
But there is no such treshold in time of stomach emptying; in fact, what happens when there is no such maximum extension treshold, what you observe is the opposite phenomenon: values become more diffuse.
This is what happens if you chose another age, not too close to the threshold : a person in Italy today has a 50% probability to reach 80 years of age; but less than 10% probability to reach 88 years of age. However, a person who already is 80 years old has probability of reaching 88 years of age a bit higher than 50% (women). The probability raises up to above 50% (for women; for men a bit less) once you consider that percentile of people alone.
So, what happens is that when you are already within that "extreme" percentile, the probability of reaching values much far from that in that percentile become greatly higher.
The extreme areas "tails" of the Gauss curve are in fact "flat", compared to the steep flanks of the curve. In those areas, values are more equall distributed.
Mistakes in the magnitude of 12 hours are reported based on miscalculation of gastric emptying.

I have to give you credit for this last argument. Your sophistry is particularly good this time. You managed to ramble on almost sounding like you know what you are talking about...which you clearly DON'T.

 

[js202]

You have made at least three claims, that Stefanoni has a Ph.D., that she worked at the University in Naples as an assistant professor, and that the University of Naples would not hire someone with a bachelor's degree. You have not supported any of them with verifiable citations. Moreover, you have not explained what degree Ms. Comodi meant. What is the degree that Stefanoni does not have?

My wife and I recently passed through Naples on our way back from a wedding in Positano. Suffice it to say that one can imagine Stefanoni being commissioned there in whatever capacity being akin to, in 1930s and 40s Soviet Union, being sent to Siberia.

There is a reason "Va fa Napoli!" is an Italian curse known to raise fisticuffs.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

stupidity from Nencini on the luminol evidence

"The Court notes that this criticism has scientific value in theory, in the sense that it is unarguable that the bluish luminescent reaction is not necessarily indicative of the presence of blood. But this emphasis, while certainly accurate in general terms, loses all value in the case under consideration, as soon as the traces detected with luminol by the Forensic Police are put into context." Nencini, p. 205

The context is, according to Nencini, that a murder has taken place and there is blood elsewhere. This is so monumentally daft that it barely deserves comment, beyond that it is warmed over Massei. Luminol is only going to be used when the investigators think that there is a chance of finding blood, but that does not mean that everything that luminol detects is blood. The forensic chemistry community is clear on this point: one has to perform a confirmatory test in order to decide conclusively whether or not something is blood. Many of the luminol positive areas lack Meredith's DNA. This is very problematic in the reality-based community: consider the Gregory Taylor case that I have discussed previously.

 

[Samson]

No. There is a fundamental mistake. Your reasoning is just wrong. Statistics work actually, the other way around.
I will not discuss Lalli's autopsy, albeit to say the intrinsic probability of error about assessing the duodenum content is just not zero. Because the duodenum is not a closed container and material can be naturally "missed".
But I don't consider this important. You do consider it the only important point, but I don't.
Instead, I disagree from your reasoning and I point at the fundamental mistake in interpreting statistics.
It is true that 114 years is too close to a maximum extension, kind of physical threshold that can't be crossed due to telomer exhaustion; there are no further values beyond that.
But there is no such treshold in time of stomach emptying; in fact, what happens when there is no such maximum extension treshold, what you observe is the opposite phenomenon: values become more diffuse.
This is what happens if you chose another age, not too close to the threshold : a person in Italy today has a 50% probability to reach 80 years of age; but less than 10% probability to reach 88 years of age. However, a person who already is 80 years old has probability of reaching 88 years of age a bit higher than 50% (women). The probability raises up to above 50% (for women; for men a bit less) once you consider that percentile of people alone.
So, what happens is that when you are already within that "extreme" percentile, the probability of reaching values much far from that in that percentile become greatly higher.
The extreme areas "tails" of the Gauss curve are in fact "flat", compared to the steep flanks of the curve. In those areas, values are more equall distributed.
Mistakes in the magnitude of 12 hours are reported based on miscalculation of gastric emptying.

Where there is no precedent, eg a 115 year old man, or stomach emptying in a healthy young woman beginning at minute 106, it becomes important to expect error in documentation. The anecdotal birth date, or the meal time.
In fact I will use your reasoning to discuss with mathematicians and medicos soon. It would be excellent to get to the bottom of all this before it is too late.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Interview with Stefanoni

Here is a machine translation of an interview with Patrizia Stefanoni:

"- When did you graduate and what is your current role?
- I graduated in Biology at the Faculty of Science ' University of Naples Federico II, in 1995, now is official engineer of the State Police.
- Can you describe briefly what is your job?
- My qualification is in Police Technical Director Principal Biologist and are employed to Section of Forensic Genetics. In practice, I am of technical investigations carried out on genetic biological traces of various types, found in it at the crime scene. The order in which there is a tendency in repertare a biological trace is to be able to determine the genetic profile of the person who owns the track, through the analysis of genetic polymorphisms known as STR (short tandem repeats). My work consists in 'interpretation genetic data, that is, in reading the genetic profiles and drafting the resulting technical report to be sent to the Authority Judicial that l 'has request.
- You can emphasize the application of knowledge that you acquired during your studies in what you need in your current work experience?
-Sicuramente The 'field of study that I have chosen and the topic of the thesis that I have carried out experimental me with a form mentis for the type of work I do, as well, of course to providing me with a whole range of basic knowledge about them in the years after I built my professionalism. The part of the molecular and genetic studies of my degree course were surely the main tool that I needed to access to the profession.
- In hindsight, what topics would you have liked that you were explained during your course of study?
- I would say without a doubt that treatment, although general, the principles of genetics and forensic analytical techniques connected to it would have been completed to the type of studies that have addressed. Today I know that something has changed, and I have news that several degree courses in various universities provide some their programs of study with a section devoted to the basics of study of human genetic profiles for personal identification."

 

[Machiavelli]

You have made at least three claims, that Stefanoni has a Ph.D., that she worked at the University in Naples as an assistant professor, and that the University of Naples would not hire someone with a bachelor's degree. You have not supported any of them with verifiable citations. Moreover, you have not explained what degree Ms. Comodi meant. What is the degree that Stefanoni does not have?

Let's be clear: Comodi never said, nor implied in any way, that Stefanoni misses some degree. The concept of Comodi conceding that some title is "missing" is your invention, your own work of twisting and changing what's written in text - which is, btw, an unverified quote (may be an allegation, a misquote or a mistranslation or a lie as far as I know).
Indeed, my assertions concerning the University of Naples are not supported by a citation, but I am writing here as a free citizen talking to people, not as an academic; I don't feel a duty to provide cites for any assertion that may conflict with the interlocutor's unsupported beliefs. But those assertions are certainly not "unverifiable"; they are indeed verifiable, cites can be found, mails can be sent, by all those who don't perceive some statements as obvious. That the University of Naples won't hire a person for eight years consecutively without the person obtaining a PhD is rather obvious, to me, but no one prevents you from seeking verifications. Do you want Stefanoni's email?

 

[Desert Fox]

"The Court notes that this criticism has scientific value in theory, in the sense that it is unarguable that the bluish luminescent reaction is not necessarily indicative of the presence of blood. But this emphasis, while certainly accurate in general terms, loses all value in the case under consideration, as soon as the traces detected with luminol by the Forensic Police are put into context." Nencini, p. 205

The context is, according to Nencini, that a murder has taken place and there is blood elsewhere. This is so monumentally daft that it barely deserves comment, beyond that it is warmed over Massei. Luminol is only going to be used when the investigators think that there is a chance of finding blood, but that does not mean that everything that luminol detects is blood. The forensic chemistry community is clear on this point: one has to perform a confirmatory test in order to decide conclusively whether or not something is blood. Many of the luminol positive areas lack Meredith's DNA. This is very problematic in the reality-based community: consider the Gregory Taylor case that I have discussed previously.

Not just in Italy but I think everywhere judges and attorneys (prosecution and defense) need to be required to take a course in basic forensics. This would at least allow some of the stupidist of the garbage to be weeded out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

another reversal of the burden of proof

Not just in Italy but I think everywhere judges and attorneys (prosecution and defense) need to be required to take a course in basic forensics. This would at least allow some of the stupidist of the garbage to be weeded out.

"In a context of this sort, and in the presence of specific and localized traces (some of which are actually in the shape of a foot- or shoe-print) highlighted by luminol, asserting that these traces reveal the presence of substances other than blood, such as potatoes, fruit juices or bleach, without, however, providing any concrete proof in point, seems from an objective point of view to be a remarkable exercise in dialectical sophistry rather than trial evidence on which any Judge might base reasoning that would be beyond criticism."

I agree, and this passage is one that should have been weeded. How would the defense even go about proving the identity of a substance, given that they don't control the crime scene? However, the more serious objection is that the burden of proof has been reversed (again). the defense does not have the obligation to identify the substance in the reality-based community. Instead, the prosecution is supposed to prove that something is blood, which they failed to do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Manual Comodi and Patrizia Stefanoni

Let's be clear: Comodi never said, nor implied in any way, that Stefanoni misses some degree. The concept of Comodi conceding that some title is "missing" is your invention, your own work of twisting and changing what's written in text - which is, btw, an unverified quote (may be an allegation, a misquote or a mistranslation or a lie as far as I know).

Ms. Comodi said, "You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree..." You may not like the implication of this passage, but that is no reason to bandy wild accusations.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nencini and the mixed DNA

"The presence of mixed Kercher-Knox traces on the cotton-bud box, on the bidet, and on the washbasin leads to the conclusion that it was Amanda Knox who washed her hands and feet, both stained with the blood of Meredith Kercher and, in so doing, by rubbing [her hands and feet], losing epithelial cells that were useful for DNA extraction...it should not be forgotten that the loss of biological substances useful for the extraction of DNA is not a phenomenon that normally happens often and with regularity in the areas that a given person frequents (the argument is obviously different on objects in common usage and on clothing, since both of these come into direct contact with the epidermis). For the loss of biological material that is useful for DNA extraction, there must be a considerable rubbing action that leaves behind biologically significant traces. [If we are to] follow the defense hypothesis, therefore, Amanda Knox would have had to deposit her own DNA in precisely the three different spots where subsequently the drops of Meredith Kercher’s blood fell as a consequence of the [act of] washing with water:" p. 208

This is a breathtakingly ignorant passage. Amanda washed her hands and feet more than once, whether or not she committed murder. How could one distinguish DNA shed from those times from a time when she hypothetically washed Meredith's blood away? Obviously, it is impossible to draw such a distinction. In addition, Nencini should learn what a substrate control is. If the FP had taken some substrate controls and found them to be negative, his argument might actually hold some validity, but they did not. This argument, too, is lame, warmed over Massei.

 

[Desert Fox]

"In a context of this sort, and in the presence of specific and localized traces (some of which are actually in the shape of a foot- or shoe-print) highlighted by luminol, asserting that these traces reveal the presence of substances other than blood, such as potatoes, fruit juices or bleach, without, however, providing any concrete proof in point, seems from an objective point of view to be a remarkable exercise in dialectical sophistry rather than trial evidence on which any Judge might base reasoning that would be beyond criticism."

I agree, and this passage is one that should have been weeded. How would the defense even go about proving the identity of a substance, given that they don't control the crime scene? However, the more serious objection is that the burden of proof has been reversed (again). the defense does not have the obligation to identify the substance in the reality-based community. Instead, the prosecution is supposed to prove that something is blood, which they failed to do.

Italy is this weird place where the legal rules are operating in the reverse way they are suppose to. In the US though, you can get away with calling a witness an idiot as a defense attorney. There have been cases where they should do just that.

 

[kwill]

In fact I will use your reasoning to discuss with mathematicians and medicos soon. It would be excellent to get to the bottom of all this before it is too late.

Be sure to show them that the presiding judge - knowing that the victim died with the contents of her last meal still in her stomach - said this:

Regarding the estimated time of death, the examination of the findings of the experts and of the technical consultations on file, the Court considered the important time period to be between the hours 11:00 pm-11:30 pm on the evening of 1 November 2007 (at around 9:00 pm the young woman returned home) . . .

And the women who shared that last meal with her said that it began around 5:30 or 6 and ended by 7:45 pm, an hour before she left to walk home. They weren't exact, and their testimonies didn't match exactly, just as Amanda and Raffaele could not say for sure what time they ate on what was for everybody an ordinary evening.

Mach has been trying to say that once you have hit the flat end on the right side of the Gauss distribution curve, the chances of the TOD being at 9:15 and 11:15 are equal. His argument is that since 9:15 already puts her gastric activity at the extreme end of the spectrum, it's no stretch at all to say she could just as easily be much farther out.

Just in terms of the mathematics, it is correct to say that the curve is basically a line once you get past a certain point. The question is whether or not that kind of calculation even makes sense in this situation. A young woman ate dinner, finishing somewhere around 7 pm, and then within the next 45 minutes ate dessert. That's the testimony.

She was still alive at 9 pm. Her stomach was full, duodenum empty when she died. What is the most likely TOD? What is the probability that she was still alive at 10? 11?

ETA: Other questions to ask your medicos and mathematicians: Is it certain that the phenomenon of gastric emptying follows a normal distribution? Is there a limiting value for the time at which emptying begins after consuming a meal?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

More about DNA from Nencini's fountain of ignorance

Nencini's vigorous rubbing argument is contradicted by the facts. Leslie Prey wrote, "We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen (Van Oorschot & Jones, 1997)."

 

[kwill]

Nencini's vigorous rubbing argument is contradicted by the facts. Leslie Prey wrote, "We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen (Van Oorschot & Jones, 1997)."

Yes. Maybe Nencini imagines that Raffaele sat and rubbed that cigarette butt vigorously, too.

 

[Samson]

Be sure to show them that the presiding judge - knowing that the victim died with the contents of her last meal still in her stomach - said this:



And the women who shared that last meal with her said that it began around 5:30 or 6 and ended by 7:45 pm, an hour before she left to walk home. They weren't exact, and their testimonies didn't match exactly, just as Amanda and Raffaele could not say for sure what time they ate on what was for everybody an ordinary evening.

Mach has been trying to say that once you have hit the flat end on the right side of the Gauss distribution curve, the chances of the TOD being at 9:15 and 11:15 are equal. His argument is that since 9:15 already puts her gastric activity at the extreme end of the spectrum, it's no stretch at all to say she could just as easily be much farther out.

Just in terms of the mathematics, it is correct to say that the curve is basically a line once you get past a certain point. The question is whether or not that kind of calculation even makes sense in this situation. A young woman ate dinner, finishing somewhere around 7 pm, and then within the next 45 minutes ate dessert. That's the testimony.

She was still alive at 9 pm. Her stomach was full, duodenum empty when she died. What is the most likely TOD? What is the probability that she was still alive at 10? 11?

I am intrigued by this subject.
Mach is putting dinner earlier to get to his flat line in order to discredit, but this is no more likely to be true than that the sun fails to rise. There is a god's eye view factual narrative somewhere that explains this, but, the only one that fits, is Rudy killed at 9pm, especially with Planigale debunking the stress factor.
The remarkable thing is that it is possible, but I always imagined Rudy trying to sweet talk his way out of his dilemma. However, in a screen play that was attempting to make the narrative fit the known facts, I would be bound to side step that and agree with Strozzi, who I think proposes the early event.

 

[JREF2010]

If someone gave her a phd they should be mortified, and probably have their certification yanked. That woman is a disgrace.

And captured on her own video!

I guess "eye of the beholder" plays a part in this Stefoni religion.
Some believe shes great others believe she should lose her job.

A disgrace is not a pig covered in mud, when the pigs who enjoy mud, are the animals voting.

Look at Nencini...he might find the level of evidence Stefoni presents as "great", and he probably never watched the video of her amazing work.
It would be interesting if Nencini was put up for a Q&A on this case to see his depth of it. I get the impression it was just one case of a thousand to him, not very interested.

 

[moije2]

Yes I dropped it. Also forgot it. It's impossible to follow all threads. I also recall now Strozzi's post and others on the very same point. It requires time especially when it comes out that people stick to one point just because of their mindset. It takes time to point out when the difference is a difference between approaches and mindsets, and also contexts and systems about a point.
There is something in what you and Strozzi said that sounds like rigid, very far from the reality of things, on this particular point. The focus on "why" she "stored" an item, is actually put in a way... just far from the reality of the system, out of context. Further answers to "precise" intentions about storing the item don't exist, for how the system work. And don't belong neither to the law nor to the mind of the scientist (Stefanoni) wo does the job.
There is no enigma, art. 360 of procedure code (unrepeatable test) works like that, and people working with items work like that.
I don't know how to explain really... it's a matter of praxis and law. The art. 360 provides the test to be unrepeatable. This seems codified. However, at the sam time the procedure is also ambiguous, an the law is always interpreted, as always happen; it is ambiguous for example if you consider that says a "testing" is unrepeateble, but does not specify when the test on an item is "over" (who decides if there are other swabs to be taken? something more to see?). In practice items are often destroyed after tests, no procedure provides for them to be stored, but the procedure does not dictate to destroy them.
Strozzi questions whether the storage was a pre storage waiting for the item to be properly destroyed. Yet this is a question that is impossible to answer, because the reality is mora ambiguous. There is no category such a "provisional storage awaiting destruction". There is also no mandate to store the item in order to preserve it.
So when was the test under art. 360 thought to be "accomplished"? I don't know, but I just bt that when Stefanoni or other laboratory technicians stored the item in a tube, none of those question was decided. In that moment, the DNA profile extracted was not even known. I think nobody had decided about the immediate fate of object. The item was in a limbo, nobody decided yet whether they had intentions to perform other tests in the following days or to throw it away. But there was no intention to take care of it in order to preserve it through time, store it in a refrigerator etc. There is no specific "reason" for this storage, I think this is a default limbo position where a huge number of things happen to go, and unfortunatly huge numbers of things of every kind in the Italian system remain in such position, I mean also things of large size part of the everyday life of Italians.

That's a lot of "context". So they had no particular reason for doing what they were doing, but stuck the specimen someplace while in limbo. A specimen that could potentially hold answers yes or no about various bits of information. Information crucial in a murder trial. I don't have time right now to analyze all of this "context", to wit the legal framework etc., but from my point of view it is rather mind boggling that these highly trained professionals would take evidence, or specimens, and treat them with lackadaisical attitude. It seems the opposite of professional conduct. Within the framework of the Italian system this is perhaps considered normal. I would say that to the outside world - meaning people trained in science - this explanation of context and system would be regarded as meaningless. To people of science.

And that regard may very well be meaningless to those in the judiciary of which we speak. That will speak for itself.

 

[kwill]

I am intrigued by this subject.
Mach is putting dinner earlier to get to his flat line in order to discredit, but this is no more likely to be true than that the sun fails to rise. There is a god's eye view factual narrative somewhere that explains this, but, the only one that fits, is Rudy killed at 9pm, especially with Planigale debunking the stress factor.
The remarkable thing is that it is possible, but I always imagined Rudy trying to sweet talk his way out of his dilemma. However, in a screen play that was attempting to make the narrative fit the known facts, I would be bound to side step that and agree with Strozzi, who I think proposes the early event.

Me, too.

For me it's the combination of the full stomach, the testimony of the English women about their meal, and the rest of the evidence inside the cottage that points toward an early TOD. Wet clothes left in the washer. Jacket on. No phone call to mum. Book brought home to study tossed on the bed.

I think she came in, called out a hello, and locked the door behind herself. Rudy was in the large bathroom. He heard her walk to her room and followed her there, probably thinking he could talk his way out of this, at least if the reports about him being the kind of guy who just knows the ladies are going to like him are true.

Instead she freaked and he pulled out his knife. The scene in the room means there was a fight, during which he got more and more enraged. Poor Meredith, man. What a horrible thing.

 

[RWVBWL]

Oh that is ok then, right?

Meredith was brutally murdered (relatively quickly) and Raffaele and Amanda are the only remaining defendants awaiting the deliberation of the Italian Supreme Court.

According to Andrea Vogt Raffaele is being sued because of extracts in his book, I wonder how he will prove is accusations regarding Mignini and oh yes the Italian Supreme Court, hang on is this the same Italian Supreme Court that will be deliberating his and Amanda’s involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher? I wonder how that will work for him?

Hi CoulsdonUK,
I found out that Raffaele was having problems,
you might say, (6 and 1/2 years ago), with getting the Italian Supreme Court to understand his role,
if any, in Miss Kercher's terrible murder:

Perugia Shock Posting:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000317/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

Friday, April 25, 2008
Raffaele: Q and A with the Supreme Court

<snip>
Raffaele:
None of my biological material was found at the crime scene.

Supreme Court:
The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant. Moreover, there is a Nike shoe print compatible with the shoes you were wearing at the time of your arrest. It is true that the identification with your own pair of Nikes is still uncertain, as the Court itself admits, but the size of the print left in the victim's blood excludes the possibility of its being attributable to Rudy Guede, since he has a much bigger shoe size. However, the real value of the print resides in the fact that just a few people may be involved in the crime and not even Knox --who admitted her presence in the house -- has excluded your presence at the crime scene. And since you said you never entered the room we have no reason to believe that the print was left the following day.


CoulsdonUK,
the Italian Supreme Court can not even count shoe rings properly,
for we know that the shoe imprints were Rudy Guede's. I doubt that they will do better passing judgment on Raffaele Sollecito this time...

 

[Numbers]

Understanding the Italian judicial system and its dysfunctions is critical to following the odd twists of this case.

The following discussion is based upon an article published in the Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol 4, Issue 3 (2005):

The frustrated turn to adversarial procedures in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), by Giulio Illuminati, Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of the Dept. of Law, University of Bologna

Italy has historically relied on an inquisitional judicial system similar to that used in Continental Europe rather than the adversarial system as used in the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. In the inquisitorial system, the judge is not a referee, but the primary seeker of truth; prosecution and defense attorneys have secondary roles. The prosecutor or investigating judge conducts an investigation, gathers the evidence into a file, and presents the file to the judge for use at the trial.

While Italy adopted an adversarial system by law (changes to the Criminal Procedure Code) in 1988, there was resistance to the new system from the Constitutional Court and elements of the judiciary. In the 1988 reform, only parts of the prosecution file was presented to the judge, to enable the prosecution and defense the role of presenting opposing lines of evidence at trial to the judge unbiased by full knowledge of the prosecution file and emphasizing cross-examination. The arguments against these changes by the prosecutors and judges was that it was inefficient and denied the judges the full power to seek truth, as they understood it. Opposition, including changes forced by the Constitutional Court, was such that the adversarial system was abandoned in 1992.

The Italian parliament, [perhaps responding to ECHR judgements], passed new reform laws starting in 1997 and, in 1999, a new Constitutional Law, modifying Article 111 of the Constitution to specify, among other new provisions, that evidence in criminal cases may only be heard in front of the parties, with cross-examination allowed, and before an impartial judge. Also added was the provision that guilt can not be proven by declarations of an accuser who had not undergone cross-examination by the defense.
....

Some of my own interpretation:
Some of the Italian judges continue to act, in part, as though the inquisitorial system were still in place. They assume themselves to be extensions of the prosecution, accepting the case file and discounting the defense. Since they are "seeking the truth", they see no reason not to invent their own "truths" which others see as speculation. Thus, they have no issue with plausible guilt rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judges thinking may be: If the defendant weren't guilty in some way, why would they be in my court; guilt, not innocence is presumed in this dysfunction of the inquisitorial system. And if the CSC orders a finding of guilt, so much "truer" this guilt must be; evidence is simply to be cherry-picked to support creative speculation to produce a seemingly but falsely "reasoned" motivation report.