Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

You are a credit to clear thinking Bill. I see that is necessary to remind the Machiavelli character once again of one of the provisions of Article 192, quoted recently by Numbers:

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence


2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

So there we have it: Evidence must be:

1) SERIOUS
2) PRECISE
3) CONSISTENT

Every claim he makes here should be subjected to this entry level test.

Thanks for finding this. I used to think it meant each item of evidence must pass through its own threshold of seriousness etc but actually it's the fact that is the singular thing here, the evidence might be multi-faceted and possess in overall combination the quality of seriousness and all that. An individual scrap of evidence by itself cannot logically be consistent with anything - considered by itself.

I have no idea why it is necessary to state that evidence must be 'serious'. As opposed to what? Comical? Not too sure about precision either. Does that mean Nara's evidence goes because it's not precise timewise? Or the whole case because TOD is not nailed down. Clearly not. It all seems a bit clever clever to me. Maybe Mach knows what it all means.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a staple of the Pro-guilt lobby. Amongst other things (as mentioned, even John Follain's account does not sustain this tidbit of character assassination, not really) almost everyone else had their moments of "inappropriate" behaviour.

One of Filomena's male-friends made a black humour joke about how Meredith died. Filomena herself in an act of astounding practicality (also in the midst of the murder of her friend) lawyered up, with the purpose to not be on the hook for the damages to her room and/or rent for a cottage she knew she would not be in for months. The last call between Knox and Filomena was them talking about where they might live.

Does that make Filomena the suspect of a crime?

And then there's this? So what if Amanda Knox is vile on ALL those points? So what? Is this thread about the internet-shaming/bullying of all the vile people in the world?

There's another point to note on this issue: it's a well-tested psychological phenomenon that suggestible people - particularly when they are formed into a group - will "rewrite history" in these sorts of situations; I believe that there's probably a significant element of this going on here.

What do I mean by that? Well I mean that Knox exhibited a certain factual range of behaviours in the couple of days after the murder which were observed by the English girls. Subsequently, the English girls were led to believe that Knox was the prime participant in the murder of their friend Kercher. Furthermore, they were positively coached and courted by police and prosecutors to assist in the "search for justice" (per the prosecutors' version, of course...). This in turn (in my opinion) led the English girls to apply warped hindsight and "remembrance" to Knox's observed behaviour on those days following the murder.

I believe that this combination of factors meant that they unconsciously "rewrote history", by exaggerating any observed Knox behaviours that were "suspicious" or "callous", minimising any observed Knox behaviours that might be considered "normal" or "compassionate", and perhaps even by inventing behaviours that Knox in fact never exhibited. And all because they had by then become convinced that Knox was a duplicitous killer of their friend, giving them a strong psychological motivation to ascribe negative behaviours to her.

It would have been incredibly interesting if we had had any insight into what the true contemporaneous views of these English girls might have been. For example, did any of them make phone calls or write emails home on 2nd/3rd November 2007 in which they voiced suspicions of Knox or even criticisms of her behaviour? I'm just guessing that the answer to that would be "no".

 

[js202]

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

Wow. If all of this is indeed true - and not the post hoc tittering of some juvenile English girls - surely it is prima facie evidence that Amanda Knox is - how does your insipid ilk put it? - a cold-blooded sex murderer.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for finding this. I used to think it meant each item of evidence must pass through its own threshold of seriousness etc but actually it's the fact that is the singular thing here, the evidence might be multi-faceted and possess in overall combination the quality of seriousness and all that. An individual scrap of evidence by itself cannot logically be consistent with anything - considered by itself.

I have no idea why it is necessary to state that evidence must be 'serious'. As opposed to what? Comical? Not too sure about precision either. Does that mean Nara's evidence goes because it's not precise timewise? Or the whole case because TOD is not nailed down. Clearly not. It all seems a bit clever clever to me. Maybe Mach knows what it all means.

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Some interpretation of Article 192:

1. The judge in the trial is responsible for evaluating the evidence; clearly he/she must make clear what criteria he/she used and what results of applying the criteria are.

I believe that Massei and Nencini do not really make clear what their criteria are; only the results of a non-logical process are provided in their motivations.

2. Interpretations (my opinions, of course):
"serious" = meaningful to an objective, reasonable person; not frivolous; based on generally accepted, valid principles
"precise" = clearly leading to or narrowing the possibilities to allow a conclusion; not fuzzy; may include the concept of "accurate" and "valid" (silly counter example: the defendant breathes air; the perpetrator was known to breathe air; therefore, this congruity shows that the defendant is the perpetrator)
"consistent" = the bits of circumstantial evidence add up to a conclusion that an objective person perceives as reasonable and singular (if not singular, then there is reasonable doubt). Again, this CCP rule was not followed in either the Massei or Nencini motivations.

 

[Kauffer]

Evidence

Thanks for finding this. I used to think it meant each item of evidence must pass through its own threshold of seriousness etc but actually it's the fact that is the singular thing here, the evidence might be multi-faceted and possess in overall combination the quality of seriousness and all that. An individual scrap of evidence by itself cannot logically be consistent with anything - considered by itself.

I have no idea why it is necessary to state that evidence must be 'serious'. As opposed to what? Comical? Not too sure about precision either. Does that mean Nara's evidence goes because it's not precise timewise? Or the whole case because TOD is not nailed down. Clearly not. It all seems a bit clever clever to me. Maybe Mach knows what it all means.

It would seem that logically:

1) Precise, serious and consistent evidence permits a finding of fact.
2) A combination of sufficient facts consistent with guilt and an absence of sufficient facts consistent with innocence, permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

One assumes that facts once found must be accorded different weight. In other words, some facts must be more important than others in arriving at a conclusion.

This provision in 192 refers only to circumstantial evidence. So, for example, Machiavelli's constant wittering about Ms Knox's alleged contact with drug dealers for which there is no direct evidence, does not pass muster as a means to prove the existence of such contact as a fact, as it is not precise, serious or consistent. He wishes to raise the quality of rumour, mere allegation and the like, to the status of acceptable evidence. The law says he cannot do this. If, on the other hand, instead of direct evidence in the form of telephone records, he could produce a witness who overheard a call being made or indeed a witness who is a drug dealer who stated he received a call from her, then the court might be able to infer a finding of fact in accordance with the law dependent on the quality of the witness - if of course this matter were before a court, which it never was.

However, there is no question that the combination of luminol positive/TMB negative test results, combined with the star prosecution witness testimony - "it's not blood", meets the test of Article 192. The court is not permitted to reach a finding of fact that it is blood.

What do you think? One tries to put oneself in the mode of Italian judicial thinking yet one is often flummoxed as it's rather odd.

 

[Numbers]

DNA & Art. 192

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Some interpretation of Article 192:

1. The judge in the trial is responsible for evaluating the evidence; clearly he/she must make clear what criteria he/she used and what results of applying the criteria are.

I believe that Massei and Nencini do not really make clear what their criteria are; only the results of a non-logical process are provided in their motivations.

2. Interpretations (my opinions, of course):
"serious" = meaningful to an objective, reasonable person; not frivolous; based on generally accepted, valid principles
"precise" = clearly leading to or narrowing the possibilities to allow a conclusion; not fuzzy; may include the concept of "accurate" and "valid" (silly counter example: the defendant breathes air; the perpetrator was known to breathe air; therefore, this congruity shows that the defendant is the perpetrator)
"consistent" = the bits of circumstantial evidence add up to a conclusion that an objective person perceives as reasonable and singular (if not singular, then there is reasonable doubt). Again, this CCP rule was not followed in either the Massei or Nencini motivations.

Consider the bra clasp DNA. There are many male DNAs. Therefore, not precise.

Consider the knife blade DNA. Results not obtained using a valid method. Qubit shows DNA level = too low, means may be NO DNA. Not precise.

Therefore, NOT GUILTY.

 

[Welshman]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

Rudy Guede viciously attacked Meredith, stabbed her to death, sexually assaulted her when she was dying, stole her belongings, went dancing as if nothing had happened snd told a pack of lies. People such as Vibio never condem Rudy for inappropriate behaviour. The police and prosecution violated the rights of Amanda and Raffaele, susuppressed evidence, told numerous lies and carried out fraud. Vibio never attacks the police and prosecution for inappropriate behaviour.

 

[Vibio]

People such as Vibio never condem Rudy for inappropriate behaviour.

We were talking about convicted criminal Amanda Marie Knox, but since you bring up Guede: he went dancing.

Knox in her sexually charged glee, made out with her boy friend in front of the mourners. (That is, when she wasn't sticking out her tongue and making faces.)

Two of a kind.


---

 

[anglolawyer]

Article 192
Evaluation of evidence

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.
2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.
4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Some interpretation of Article 192:

1. The judge in the trial is responsible for evaluating the evidence; clearly he/she must make clear what criteria he/she used and what results of applying the criteria are.

I believe that Massei and Nencini do not really make clear what their criteria are; only the results of a non-logical process are provided in their motivations.

2. Interpretations (my opinions, of course):
"serious" = meaningful to an objective, reasonable person; not frivolous; based on generally accepted, valid principles
"precise" = clearly leading to or narrowing the possibilities to allow a conclusion; not fuzzy; may include the concept of "accurate" and "valid" (silly counter example: the defendant breathes air; the perpetrator was known to breathe air; therefore, this congruity shows that the defendant is the perpetrator)
"consistent" = the bits of circumstantial evidence add up to a conclusion that an objective person perceives as reasonable and singular (if not singular, then there is reasonable doubt). Again, this CCP rule was not followed in either the Massei or Nencini motivations.

Good post. I like all that.

 

[Samson]

We were talking about convicted criminal Amanda Marie Knox, but since you bring up Guede: he went dancing.

Knox in her sexually charged glee, made out with her boy friend in front of the mourners. (That is, when she wasn't sticking out her tongue and making faces.)

Two of a kind.


---

hmmm, I agree not discreet behaviour and not clever for a murderer. I think if she had been serious composed and bland she might just have got away with it. Actually that you can highlight this stuff and suggest it is incriminating, when of course it is quite the opposite, says little for your judgement of human nature.

 

[sept79]

Consider the bra clasp DNA. There are many male DNAs. Therefore, not precise.

Consider the knife blade DNA. Results not obtained using a valid method. Qubit shows DNA level = too low, means may be NO DNA. Not precise.

Therefore, NOT GUILTY.

An addendum:

Consider the hallway footprints illuminated by luminol but testing negative for blood by TMB. No confirmative testing performed. Therefore, not blood.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Knox sounds pretty vile.

As her "best friend" lay dead after having her throat slashed only hours before... the friends of Meredith describe Knox's gleeful, sexually charged behavior at the police station:

Robin Butterworth testifying in court:

"I found Amanda's behavior very strange and I found it quite difficult to be around her."

"Knox and Sollecito fooled around as they waited".

"I remember Amanda sticking her tongue out at Raffaele," Butterworth said in English, her testimony translated for the court. "They were talking and joking, kissing and cuddling.""

Amy Frost, another witness who was also at the police station, said Knox "made faces," such as crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out. She was "giggling" and kissing Sollecito, said Frost.

These people barely knew Amanda.

I know her quite well at this point. She and I have become friends. I have also become friends with her mother and stepfather. I know her extended family members, and I know her closest friends.

She is a warm, genuine, immensely kind-hearted woman. She is never aggressive or confrontational, and she is conscientious in her dealings with other people. That is how she is regarded by those who have known her well for many years.

 

[Kauffer]

Up all night

hmmm, I agree not discreet behaviour and not clever for a murderer. I think if she had been serious composed and bland she might just have got away with it. Actually that you can highlight this stuff and suggest it is incriminating, when of course it is quite the opposite, says little for your judgement of human nature.

Has anyone calculated how long a guilty Amanda Knox would have gone without sleep over 1st/2nd November? By the time we see her outside the cottage with the police she's been up all night cleaning the crime scene with a couple of shuttles back and forth to Garibaldi. So assuming she got up at 8 am the previous day, she's been awake for nearly 30 hours and looks rather too fresh for that. By the time she leaves the questura that evening, she's up to what? Nearly 40 hours without sleep. How unlikely?

I suppose the PG loons would say it's easy to do that if she's taking Class A stimulants!

 

[Kauffer]

Character

These people barely knew Amanda.

I know her quite well at this point. She and I have become friends. I have also become friends with her mother and stepfather. I know her extended family members, and I know her closest friends.

She is a warm, genuine, immensely kind-hearted woman. She is never aggressive or confrontational, and she is conscientious in her dealings with other people. That is how she is regarded by those who have known her well for many years.

It's nice to read a post like this. Of course, one has to say with all due respect to Charlie that in case terms the important and somewhat blandly important thing to say is that there is simply no evidence of bad character - indeed nothing that could possibly connect Ms Knox with sociopathic murderousness. Nevertheless, many people who have met her subsequent to her return from Italy report in a similar manner to Charlie.

 

[tsig]

We were talking about convicted criminal Amanda Marie Knox, but since you bring up Guede: he went dancing.

Knox in her sexually charged glee, made out with her boy friend in front of the mourners. (That is, when she wasn't sticking out her tongue and making faces.)

Two of a kind.


---

Those who associate with Knox lose their jobs, property, reputation, freedom and even their life, she's Knoxic.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's nice to read a post like this. Of course, one has to say with all due respect to Charlie that in case terms the important and somewhat blandly important thing to say is that there is simply no evidence of bad character - indeed nothing that could possibly connect Ms Knox with sociopathic murderousness. Nevertheless, many people who have met her subsequent to her return from Italy report in a similar manner to Charlie.

..... yet, the hate sites continue with the diagnosis of psychopathology assigned to Amanda Knox. Judge Massei did not "psychologize" his reasons for convicting in 2009, he "theologized" them. He said these two normal students on the eve of their achievements, took a "choice for evil".

Judge Massei said that this was Rudy's crime, it was Rudy's motive, and he hardly needed to be urged on to do it by relative strangers to him - AK and RS. Massei's conclusion was that it must have been the drugs (soft drugs at that!) which pushed AK and RS to make this choice for evil.

What this sounds like to me is that Judge Massei is struggling to fit the round-peg of both AK and RS's well known personalities into the square hole of this crime. But he did it anyway.

Because to Judge Massei, they probably did it.

Judge Nencini and Cassation have taken a differing tact. They think AK and RS did it because the judicial fact of Rudy Guede's fast-track trial is that they did it. So who cares about psychologizing or theologizing.... just find them guilty like Cassazione intended.

 

[Bill Williams]

Has anyone calculated how long a guilty Amanda Knox would have gone without sleep over 1st/2nd November? By the time we see her outside the cottage with the police she's been up all night cleaning the crime scene with a couple of shuttles back and forth to Garibaldi. So assuming she got up at 8 am the previous day, she's been awake for nearly 30 hours and looks rather too fresh for that. By the time she leaves the questura that evening, she's up to what? Nearly 40 hours without sleep. How unlikely?

I suppose the PG loons would say it's easy to do that if she's taking Class A stimulants!

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, do not bring up this issue with Machiavelli here.

I brought this up about 18 months ago. Machiavelli said that he could discern from Knox's writings that she could choose not to sleep, and therefore be immune from sleep-deprivation issues. Therefore, she was able to go into that fatefilled Nov 5/6 interrogation fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators.

I am quite sure you'll be hearing from Machiavelli on this issue. It is well-trod territory on this thread.... (or was it on IIP?)

 

[Dan O.]

Did anybody notice the time?

An obscure item in the Testimony of Stefano Gubbiotti, he testified to have viewed the CCTV from the carpark and he made a record of events from that video. He notes the time that the the tow truck was visible on camera from 23:04 to 23:14. Later he is asked to clarify the times and he states that the CCTV time is 10 minutes fast. This is an identical issue as we had with the time Meredith crossed in front of the CCTV camera. The prosecution erred by accepting the hearsay of the car park attendant (who was never named and never testified) that the clock was fast whereas the defense showed by linking the CCTV to the cell phone records that the clock was slow.

Given that, who can do the math to find the actual time that the tow truck was in front of the camera?

 

[Bill Williams]

Consider the bra clasp DNA. There are many male DNAs. Therefore, not precise.

Consider the knife blade DNA. Results not obtained using a valid method. Qubit shows DNA level = too low, means may be NO DNA. Not precise.

Therefore, NOT GUILTY.

..... but acc. to Nencini, only one is there suspiciously. Raffaele's. The others belong possibly to Meredith's boyfriend, and the others belong to Meredith's "amica".

Did Nencini order tests to demonstrate this? No. He merely surmised.

And on this he sentenced Raffaele to 25 years.

 

[Numbers]

An addendum:

Consider the hallway footprints illuminated by luminol but testing negative for blood by TMB. No confirmative testing performed. Therefore, not blood.

Exactly. The lack of confirmatory testing and negative TMB testing = not precise (not blood, even according to Stefanoni) = consistent with NOT GUILTY.