Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

What?

Exactly.

Machiavelli started with the premiss of guilt and views all the evidence as if it is part of the guilt scenario. He forces himself to see the breakin as staged because that is the only way he can maintain the illusion of guilt.

The evidence of the staged breakin doesn't come into existence until the time of the trial. There are no photographs taken at the time as evidence of the staged breakin. The prosecution has to use a photo taken by the defense months later to claim that the wall is clean. They didn't get photos showing the claimed glass on top of the cloths, the didn't get photos showing the lack of glass outside. They just made the claims after the fact and Machiavelli has the kool-aid concession.

 

[Machiavelli]

My impression is that in Italy and some of the other European countries, criticizing a public official - the performance of that official - or stating that the official has committed misconduct or a crime - is considered defamation and may be punished by civil and/or criminal legal action.

Criticizing a public official or a person of power publicly, and stating that someone has committed misconduct or a crime, are two very different things.

In the US, all criticisms of public officials are not subject to criminal penalty.

In Italy, criticism and allegations of unproven facts are different things.

(...) Criticisms that defame - for example, accusations of misconduct or crime - may constitute libel, and be subject to civil lawsuit by the allegedly injured party. But to defend against libel, one only has to show that the allegedly libelous statements are true. And for a public official to win a libel suit, he or she must show that the statement is both false and of malicious intent.

In Italy, there is no difference between a public officer and any other citizen. In all cases, it is always the defendant (the person who made a defamatory claim) who needs to have an iron-clad proof that what he/she says is true. The difference is that the case is usually a criminal one (which raises somehow the burden of proof for the claimant, since a type of malicious intent needs to be proven) and also, it is very easy and cheap for anyone to file a criminal defamation case, so it's not something just for public officers and persons of power.

So from an American perspective, freedom of speech is severely limited in some European countries.

I believe it, but in fact countries express sovereignty. Populations have different sets of values. From an Italian perspective many things are wrong with the American system. Starting from the judicial system/ human rights area (Guantanamo-like things), to the protection of privacy and environment or human health and commerce, like the fact that in the US citizens are not allowed to have the standards, protections and controls they want on food products.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly.

Machiavelli started with the premiss of guilt and views all the evidence as if it is part of the guilt scenario. He forces himself to see the breakin as staged because that is the only way he can maintain the illusion of guilt.

The evidence of the staged breakin doesn't come into existence until the time of the trial. There are no photographs taken at the time as evidence of the staged breakin. The prosecution has to use a photo taken by the defense months later to claim that the wall is clean. They didn't get photos showing the claimed glass on top of the cloths, the didn't get photos showing the lack of glass outside. They just made the claims after the fact and Machiavelli has the kool-aid concession.

But there is much more evidence than that. Yes there is a talk about clean wall and lack of glass outside, the prosecution and judges in first trial erroneously focus on these, but these are not the most relevant evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

But there is much more evidence than that. Yes there is a talk about clean wall and lack of glass outside, the prosecution and judges in first trial erroneously focus on these, but these are not the most relevant evidence.

Long on claims, short on evidence. That's a Machiavelli.

 

[kwill]

The autopsy report,
the lies and story changings of Sollecito,
the lies and the calunnia from Knox,
the double-DNA kitchen knife,
the bra clasp DNA,
the luminol prints,
the telephone records contrasting with their alibies,
the false computer record alibi,
physical evidence of staged burglary;

The autopsy report showed that a single perpetrator was perfectly possible.
Sollecito's only inconsistency was during the untaped and illegal interview on the night before his arrest. Before that and after that, he was perfectly clear.
Knox's situation is exactly the same.
There was no Meredith DNA on the kitchen knife.
The clasp was clearly contaminated as it had the DNA of several men on it.
The luminol prints tested negative for blood.
The telephone records? Please elaborate.
The false computer record? Tell us more.
The can't be physical evidence of a staged burglary because the burglary was real.

No, there is no case. Hard as the PGP struggle to invent one, it's not there.

 

[Numbers]

I have been doing a bit of ECHR case reading, with the benefit of finding some relevant cases in the 7th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2013. The case of interest is:

Caka v. Albania 44023/02 Final 08 Mar 2010

Some of the points of interest:

1. There has been controversy in the forum as to whether relevant sections of a referent state's constitution may be reviewed by ECtHR with respect to a case. That is, I maintained it can be, and Mach stated only court decisions or court documents are admitted to ECtHR and reviewed with respect to a case. In Caka v. Albania, relevant sections of the Albania constitution were indeed reviewed - not in this case to determine if they conformed to ECHR, but to determine if the conduct of the Albanian courts conformed to the Albanian constitution.

2. There was a similar controversy about review of law aka code of criminal procedure (CCP) for Albania. Articles of the CCP were reviewed to determine if the conduct of the Albanian courts conformed to the CCP.

3. Trial transcripts and other court records and documents were the basis for the review of the conduct of the courts. The ECtHR noted that some official court documents required according to CCP were not provided by the Albanian government and may perhaps not have been generated during the trial and appeals.

4. Some of the applicant's claims were decided as inadmissible either for:
4.a Failure of the applicant to have exhausted domestic remedies
4.b Failure of the applicant to have filed an application within the six month time limit. The time limit can be tricky; the applicant wanted to claim his remand prison time was contrary to ECHR Article 5, but according to this case, a claim for this should be filed within six months of when the remand comes to an end, when the first level trial verdict guilty is pronounced.

5. In spite of the issues of inadmissibility of some claims (as stated in [4] above), the ECtHR found for the applicant in his claims of an unfair trial due to failure of the Albanian courts to allow cross-examination of several witness, failure of the courts to allow calling several defense witnesses, and the courts' failure to allow the testimony of favorable witnesses, heard in a first first-level court, to be entered into the record of the final first-level court (following a transfer of court ordered by the Albanian Supreme Court, which transfer had apparently not been documented in accordance with Albanian CCP). Violation of Article 6.1 in conjunction with 6.3d.
ETA: Just Compensation paid by Albania in 2012 and 2013 (Euros): 3,014,750 and 2,054,700, respectively. Amounts not so small for a state with population of 2.8 million in 2013. May be it's all for some property rights issues; Caka was awarded only 3k Euro.

 

[Desert Fox]

The autopsy report,
the lies and story changings of Sollecito,
the lies and the calunnia from Knox,
the double-DNA kitchen knife,
the bra clasp DNA,
the luminol prints,
the telephone records contrasting with their alibies,
the false computer record alibi,
physical evidence of staged burglary;

The autopsy report showed that a single perpetrator was perfectly possible.
Sollecito's only inconsistency was during the untaped and illegal interview on the night before his arrest. Before that and after that, he was perfectly clear.
Knox's situation is exactly the same.
There was no Meredith DNA on the kitchen knife.
The clasp was clearly contaminated as it had the DNA of several men on it.
The luminol prints tested negative for blood.
The telephone records? Please elaborate.
The false computer record? Tell us more.
The can't be physical evidence of a staged burglary because the burglary was real.

No, there is no case. Hard as the PGP struggle to invent one, it's not there.

I almost missed his answer but reorganizing it in line makes it stand out.
Ever point on that list we have addressed over and over again.

 

[Sonia]

The blood is a good thing to focus on. Can we have a reminder of the injury Knox sustained from which she supposedly bled? We can leave aside that the guilters have two parallel, mutually inconsistent theories running most of the time, from which they leap one to the other without any apparent embarrassment - in one there were multiple assailants who restrained her but in the other she was free to inflict bloody injuries.

I enjoyed the bit in M's wall of text about a knife slipping and A getting her hand cut, which is funny considering that we all understand how every mm of A's skin was examined, and there was no cut anywhere.

That bit contrasted well with another bit where M claimed Rudy did not hold a knife. That is funny because everyone knows Rudy's hands were so deeply cut that the slices were still visible weeks later.

Is M OK? He sounds distraught.

 

[Samson]

I enjoyed the bit in M's wall of text about a knife slipping and A getting her hand cut, which is funny considering that we all understand how every mm of A's skin was examined, and there was no cut anywhere.

That bit contrasted well with another bit where M claimed Rudy did not hold a knife. That is funny because everyone knows Rudy's hands were so deeply cut that the slices were still visible weeks later.

Is M OK? He sounds distraught.

This is a really interesting question, and is seemingly taking its toll on analysts here.
I am slowly coming to the realisation that it is not possible to reconcile a life of sadistically attacking innocent people while in fact holding the view they are innocent.
Therefore Machiavelli is fine, and he knows Knox is guilty.
The semiotics of knowing Knox is guilty needs further scholarship.

 

[kwill]

I almost missed his answer but reorganizing it in line makes it stand out.
Ever point on that list we have addressed over and over again.

Right?

It's hard to believe we're still talking about it.

My first rodeo with Mach had to do with his contention that Amanda was a party girl and not an honor student with a history of earning her own way by having jobs.

It stands out in my mind as one of the silliest conversations I've ever had. The University of Washington became a low-quality school. A degree in foreign languages became a trivial program. Amanda probably met Rudy when she first arrived and then had a relationship of some kind with him.

Mach had met some American girls once, so he was qualified to assess the personality of Amanda through watching her in court.

That's what really underlies his convictions about the evidence . . . he's convinced himself that it's possible to lose your own cultural blinders without even trying.

I'm fairly sure that if you took a random 20-year-old Italian girl and dropped her into the U district for 6 weeks and then put her on trial for murder, her behavior might seem unusual to us locals.

 

[Desert Fox]

Right?

It's hard to believe we're still talking about it.

My first rodeo with Mach had to do with his contention that Amanda was a party girl and not an honor student with a history of earning her own way by having jobs.

It stands out in my mind as one of the silliest conversations I've ever had. The University of Washington became a low-quality school. A degree in foreign languages became a trivial program. Amanda probably met Rudy when she first arrived and then had a relationship of some kind with him.

Mach had met some American girls once, so he was qualified to assess the personality of Amanda through watching her in court.

That's what really underlies his convictions about the evidence . . . he's convinced himself that it's possible to lose your own cultural blinders without even trying.

I'm fairly sure that if you took a random 20-year-old Italian girl and dropped her into the U district for 6 weeks and then put her on trial for murder, her behavior might seem unusual to us locals.

The thing is that when a court case involves international politics, one needs to make sure your "T's" are crossed and your "I's" are dotted. While there are some problems with the DNA today, the case against Jens Söring seemed pretty solid at the time and Virginia approached the case cautiously. Not Italy however.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes, correct.
However I am not sure whether exactly it was towels, or if it was just the bathmat. I feel rather certain they used the bathmat. I don't know if they also used the towels for the purpose of walking in the corridoor.

OK, I'm glad to know I got your basic theory right. But you need to work out the details, because rank speculation is hardly convincing if you don't even know exactly what it is you are speculating. The prosecutor's footprint expert says both Amanda and Raffaele made some of the luminol footprints. Did they take turns sliding on the mat, or did they slide together, in tandem?

Or did each of them have their own fabric vehicle, so to speak? (That would be less romantic than a tandem slide, but it might be more efficient.)

Also, did Mignini or any of the other trained monkeys present this mat-sliding theory in court, or is it (as I suspect) a Machiavelli//PMF/TJMK original concept? If it's your idea, maybe someone in your little club of enthusiasts could perform a video simulation of the mat sliding, to show the world how it happened. You could have someone slide up to a shuttered window with a rock and break it from the inside so it bounces the way Massei described in his report. If you presented this demonstration at a forensics conference, it might pick up some media. It would definitely make an unforgettable breakout session for the attendees who chose it. Have you thought about doing that?

 

[anglolawyer]

I enjoyed the bit in M's wall of text about a knife slipping and A getting her hand cut, which is funny considering that we all understand how every mm of A's skin was examined, and there was no cut anywhere.

That bit contrasted well with another bit where M claimed Rudy did not hold a knife. That is funny because everyone knows Rudy's hands were so deeply cut that the slices were still visible weeks later.

Is M OK? He sounds distraught.

I think Mach is fine. He is dominating the discussion and attracting plaudits from near and far. In sheer length (more is promised ) he attains new heights.

 

[Dan O.]

I think Mach is fine. He is dominating the discussion and attracting plaudits from near and far. In sheer length (more is promised ) he attains new heights.

I don't think the self congratulations actually counts for the near.

 

[Samson]

OK, I'm glad to know I got your basic theory right. But you need to work out the details, because rank speculation is hardly convincing if you don't even know exactly what it is you are speculating. The prosecutor's footprint expert says both Amanda and Raffaele made some of the luminol footprints. Did they take turns sliding on the mat, or did they slide together, in tandem?

Or did each of them have their own fabric vehicle, so to speak? (That would be less romantic than a tandem slide, but it might be more efficient.)

Also, did Mignini or any of the other trained monkeys present this mat-sliding theory in court, or is it (as I suspect) a Machiavelli//PMF/TJMK original concept? If it's your idea, maybe someone in your little club of enthusiasts could perform a video simulation of the mat sliding, to show the world how it happened. You could have someone slide up to a shuttered window with a rock and break it from the inside so it bounces the way Massei described in his report. If you presented this demonstration at a forensics conference, it might pick up some media. It would definitely make an unforgettable breakout session for the attendees who chose it. Have you thought about doing that?

When I saw the impaled glass shard, I showed the picture to a few people, and the most common response was "like a bullet".

So Amanda tapped the rock on the window, and got glass to move like a bullet. The first time I saw that embedded shard in the hardwood shutter, beautifully photographically recorded, and calculated that no one could realistically suggest it was an historic fixture, I knew that the case was absurd. All discussion of dna and footprints is explained by malfeasance and a ridiculous idea that a crime scene can be analysed after being a tourist circus.

ETA, that impaled shard is the smoking gun that the American people will buy as a case for a rock thrown from the car park, and thus not when a dead body is inside!

And I am sure Dan O decided that long before me by the way.

 

[anglolawyer]

When I saw the impaled glass shard, I showed the picture to a few people, and the most common response was "like a bullet".

So Amanda tapped the rock on the window, and got glass to move like a bullet. The first time I saw that embedded shard in the hardwood shutter, beautifully photographically recorded, and calculated that no one could realistically suggest it was an historic fixture, I knew that the case was absurd. All discussion of dna and footprints is explained by malfeasance and a ridiculous idea that a crime scene can be analysed after being a tourist circus.

ETA, that impaled shard is the smoking gun that the American people will buy as a case for a rock thrown from the car park, and thus not when a dead body is inside!

And I am sure Dan O decided that long before me by the way.

Not only that but she also brilliantly spread the glass fragments across the room toward the door, remembering that the smaller pieces had to appear to have travelled furthest, but strangely forgot to completely remove the rock from the bag she swung. Doh. OTOH she did successfully mimic the likely trajectory assuming a deflection from the inner shutter and, if memory serves, artfully place fragments in the vicinity in a pleasingly realistic way.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think the self congratulations actually counts for the near.

But there's always Griffinmill.

 

[Samson]

A letter a phone call a knock on the door.

Enroll on PMF and email them. A knock on the door. It has impact. My username is permanently banned for being a member, and sending messages to a total of four members.
Popper.
Soulmate.
Norbetc
Corpusvile.

I am sure they read what I sent, which were simple expositions of science.

I will monitor their posts from interest.

Soulmate is a good man.

 

[Desert Fox]

A letter a phone call a knock on the door.

Enroll on PMF and email them. A knock on the door. It has impact. My username is permanently banned for being a member, and sending messages to a total of four members.
Popper.
Soulmate.
Norbetc
Corpusvile.

I am sure they read what I sent, which were simple expositions of science.

I will monitor their posts from interest.

Soulmate is a good man.

On the SGU forum, we had a holocaust denier join the board. The poster was given multiple chances where responds with counter points to every arguement. After a while, when there was no real give and take from that poster, they were banned. When you cannot even disagree with the party line, there is a problem.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not only that but she also brilliantly spread the glass fragments across the room toward the door, remembering that the smaller pieces had to appear to have travelled furthest, but strangely forgot to completely remove the rock from the bag she swung. Doh. OTOH she did successfully mimic the likely trajectory assuming a deflection from the inner shutter and, if memory serves, artfully place fragments in the vicinity in a pleasingly realistic way.

Indeed she did a very convincing job, and she only stepped off her sliding mat twice, as recorded with Luminol, the bright, blue, infallible nectar of truth. Kermit should do a powerpoint about this. Where is Kermit these days, anyway? I think he lurks here. Just a hunch.