Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

But this has nothing to do with judge's discretional assessment of evidence. Evidence established by judges instead than by a scientific expert does not equate to arbitrary judgment. The notion of "scientifically valid forensics" does not belong to the framework of human rights. Non arbitrary does not mean proved by "scientific" evidence.

I think I just heard Judge Burnett with regards to allowing a so called cult expert with a PhD from a diploma mill to testify as an expert witness. . . .

 

[Vibio]

In this case the judge, demonstrably did not have sufficient intellectual capacity to understand and ascribe weight to, evidence heard in court.

In todays news: President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Judge Alessandro Nencini's intellectual capacity and ability to evaluate evidence heard in court is severly lacking according to internet poster "Kauffer".

Next up: Second Guessing the ECHR: What Those Clauses Really Mean.


---

 

[Kauffer]

Debunking Machiavelli on luminol

As we know the Machiavelli account has claimed three scientists, Webb, Tobe and Barni from their published research can be cited in support of the conclusion that luminol reactions at the cottage are reliable proof of blood.

Here is an extract from:

"Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection" (Barni and others 2007)


"The most problematic chemicals for a correct interpretation of luminol test results are those which provoke intensification or a generation of a chemiluminescence emission even if blood is not present, leading to false-positive results. Due to the possible presence of these substances at the crime scene, the luminol test must not be considered sufficiently specific to permit an unequivocal identification of blood [15,18,51,88,89].

Those compounds which generate luminol chemiluminescence, or enhance the luminol emission in the presence of bloodstains can be divide into three major categories (Fig. 13):
1. compounds showing a catalytic true peroxidase or peroxidase-like activity;
2. compounds with a high oxidizing capacity towards luminol;
3. compounds with a complex chemical composition with an
undefined action mechanism towards luminol mixture." (Page 906)

http://chem-faculty.lsu.edu/McCarle...es_SP2008/Barni_Talanta_Luminol_Forensics.pdf

So, no help for Machiavelli there.

The paper is worth reading in it's entirety.

Still waiting for the Machiavelli account to supply some relevant, contextual citation from either, Webb, Tobe or Barni indicating that luminol positive/TMB negative results can be relied on as proof of blood.

 

[Desert Fox]

In todays news: President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Judge Alessandro Nencini's intellectual capacity and ability to evaluate evidence heard in court is severly lacking according to internet poster "Kauffer".

Next up: Second Guessing the ECHR: What Those Clauses Really Mean.


---

Ad hominem

 

[Kauffer]

In todays news: President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Judge Alessandro Nencini's intellectual capacity and ability to evaluate evidence heard in court is severly lacking according to internet poster "Kauffer".

Next up: Second Guessing the ECHR: What Those Clauses Really Mean.


---

Greetings Vibio. Got any evidence for us today (or any day really). A crime scene reconstruction demonstrating how you can stab someone to death and leave no evidence perhaps? More contradictions of science and scientists based on your feelings?

 

[MichaelB]

It's been a while since this was brought up but does anyone know if this photo ever appeared in the Italian media? It was originally in the Daily Mail on November 9, 2007.

I remember quite a few people suspected it's where Massei got his Meredith was “probably just laying on her bed absent-mindedly playing with her phone" theory from to explain the aborted calls and mms.

Meredith’s Cell Phone Helps Pinpoint Time Of Death http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/merediths-cell-phone-helps-pinpoint-time-of-death/

 

[Desert Fox]

Greetings Vibio. Got any evidence for us today (or any day really). A crime scene reconstruction demonstrating how you can stab someone to death and leave no evidence perhaps? More contradictions of science and scientists based on your feelings?

You can believe that Scott Peterson is not guilty but one cannot argue that the prosecution did not make a solid circumstantial case. I don't see that with this case however.

 

[Numbers]

In todays news: President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Judge Alessandro Nencini's intellectual capacity and ability to evaluate evidence heard in court is severly lacking according to internet poster "Kauffer".

Next up: Second Guessing the ECHR: What Those Clauses Really Mean.


---

I agree with Vibio that we should not simply assume that Nencini's egregious errors and inconsistencies are due to a lack of intellectual capacity. It may be that he is of normal intelligence but lacks the moral capacity to follow the law as laid out in the Italian Constitution and CCP, and the ECHR. Another possibility is that he needs a refresher course in those three sources of Italian jurisprudence.

I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to let us know what the other sources of Italian jurisprudence are for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law. IIUC, he indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

ETA: Note that every appeal petition, whether by the defense or by the prosecution, as particularly in Italy as in any other country where there are appeals, includes a listing of presumed errors by a court and its judge(s).

Also, consider that an Italian assize court consists of two professional judges, who presumably went to college and law school, and a panel of lay judges, who are not subjected to any selection process for ability or lack of bias (unlike a US jury) and, for the appeal court, need only have a high-school level education. They are likely merely followers of the professional judges.

 

[Kauffer]

I agree with Vibio that we should not simply assume that Nencini's egregious errors and inconsistencies are due to a lack of intellectual capacity. It may be that he is of normal intelligence but lacks the moral capacity to follow the law as laid out in the Italian Constitution and CCP, and the ECHR. Another possibility is that he needs a refresher course in those three sources of Italian jurisprudence.

I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to let us know what the other sources of Italian jurisprudence are for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law. IIUC, he indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

You might be right of course. The simplest explanation however is that he is thick.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm fully behind you with Webb, Tobe and Barni. If they say that when you have a positive luminol test followed by a negative TMB test and no confirmatory test for blood, that it is safe to conclude that there is blood, then I will re-evaluate my position. Perhaps they have something to say about the absence of DNA in blood samples too. Where do they write about these things?

What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge. You can safely predict that if latent stains are highly diluted (which is somehow in the nature of latent stains) blood won't be detected by other tests.
But the point you seem to miss is another one.
It is only up to the judge to determine what evidence means, like to conclude if latent stains are blood or not. There is no requirement that some other discipline determines that.

Thank you for confirming that judges can convict on the basis of something being possible.

The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative.
There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method.

It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

Sometimes it is useful to track a sub-thread, so as to see how things follow.

Kauffer wants to know why others refuse to accept that whatever it was that luminol detected, it is proven as "not blood" by a further specific-confirmatory test.

Machiavelli presumably then sneaks a point in under the radar that the confirmatory itself is not 100% accurate - therefore it could be mistaken. All true (Why this reasoning then is not applied to the luminol, that it, too, could be mistaken, is beyond me. Then again, Machiavelli's purpose here is to Bewitch, Beguile, And Bewilder like Pal Joey...)

The convicting judges, one of them himself who used the term "presumed blood" multiple times to assess the blood evidence, seems to agree with Machiavelli. It seems that just because the confirmatory test has "ruled out" what was tested as blood, the good judge nevertheless accepts the proposition that: What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge.
It therefore is safe to conclude that judges in Italy, acc. to both Nencini and Machiavelli, can convict on possibilities, even when the large weight of probability is against them.

Machiavelli then shifts the goalposts:

- "The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative." So even if some piece of evidence does not tend to add to "proving" the case, it still can be used.

- "There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt." Machiavelli just chucks this in there, not realizing that his first point covers this. If an item of circumstantial evidence does not even have to be probative, it most certainly does not need to BARD.

- "Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method." At least there is one claim by Machiavelli that one can sink their teeth into. You see no one has said this. What is at issue if you read this thread through is if a single piece of evidence has been disproven by scientific method.
​

Reading Machiavelli and following the thread as he dances and weaves and Bewitches, Beguiles, And Bewilders like Pal Joey, is instructive.

He's the one who tried to conclude this thread with the baffling.....

It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

We've moved from safe evidence, possible evidence, non-probative evidence (which in other words is non-evidence!!!) to BARD evidence, to evidence disproven by the scientific method, to .......

Bewitch, Beguile. Bother, and Bewilder:

Wise at last
My eyes at last
Are cutting you down to your size at last
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more

Burned a lot
But learned a lot
And now you are broke, though you earned a lot
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more

Couldn't eat
Was dyspeptic
Life was so hard to bear;
Now my heart's antiseptic
Since you moved out of there

Romance-Finis
Your chance-finis
Those ants that invaded my pants-finis
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more.

 

[Machiavelli]

In todays news: President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Judge Alessandro Nencini's intellectual capacity and ability to evaluate evidence heard in court is severly lacking according to internet poster "Kauffer".

Next up: Second Guessing the ECHR: What Those Clauses Really Mean.


---

...




.

 

[Numbers]

You might be right of course. The simplest explanation however is that he is thick.

I believe any one of the three possibilities would be simple:
1. Lack of intellectual capacity
2. Lack of moral capacity (including a willingness to follow unlawful orders)
3. Lack of familiarity with the law

But real people are not always simple in the sources of their behavior. Behavior is often determined by a multitude of factors.

So I see no reason not to believe that all the three factors identified above play a role (but not necessarily equal roles) in his judgment (or lack thereof).

 

[Samson]

This comment about the Scazzi case is extremely shallow. The uncle certain hid the body, but he was not alone; and he failed to explain how he could kill her (he gave nine contradictory versions about the fact, many of them conflicting with the autopsy report).

This case is extremely relevant. The parallels are too close for comfort.
1. Young woman allegedly kllls young woman with no previous form.
2. A man is in jail for killing a young woman.
3. He has plenty of previous form.
4. The main witness is a discredited dream merchant, the florist, just like Capazelli who heard a scream when Meredith had been dead for two hours.

Machiavelli, you are defending a broken and corrupt judiciary.

Remember the true enemy of Raffaele Sollecito is Lyle Kercher, who like you is oblivious to the need to study evidence. Here is a quote from a legal text book for you to hold close to your heart,

Strong ([4.1.3], p 56) says, on the topic of legal authority in university and vocational coursework:

“your final conclusion must be based on established legal principles, not on common sense or even on logic”.

 

[Numbers]

...




.

Hi Mach,
Good morning.

Glad you're here so I can ask a question of you.

Remember the discussion on Italian court jurisprudence? Well, I never did quite understand what all the sources of the jurisprudence are. Could you help inform me?

To be more precise, what are the other sources of Italian jurisprudence for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law? IIUC, you indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sometimes it is useful to track a sub-thread, so as to see how things follow.

Kauffer wants to know why others refuse to accept that whatever it was that luminol detected, it is proven as "not blood" by a further specific-confirmatory test.

Machiavelli presumably then sneaks a point in under the radar that the confirmatory itself is not 100% accurate - therefore it could be mistaken. All true (Why this reasoning then is not applied to the luminol, that it, too, could be mistaken, is beyond me. Then again, Machiavelli's purpose here is to Bewitch, Beguile, And Bewilder like Pal Joey...)

The convicting judges, one of them himself who used the term "presumed blood" multiple times to assess the blood evidence, seems to agree with Machiavelli. It seems that just because the confirmatory test has "ruled out" what was tested as blood, the good judge nevertheless accepts the proposition that: What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge.
It therefore is safe to conclude that judges in Italy, acc. to both Nencini and Machiavelli, can convict on possibilities, even when the large weight of probability is against them.

(...skip childish and repeated tactics...):

The mass of evidence and the while weight of probabilities is against Knox and Sollecito. This is why this waffling and ranting about "science" and dancing in circles and all your circular little lies around is void and useless.

 

[Samson]

Since Vibio raised the subject, I suggest society no longer let's judges lawyers and journalists run amok trying to establish truths that have already been established by scientists engineers and medical specialists.

 

[carbonjam72]

A Word About Good Faith...

I agree with Vibio that we should not simply assume that Nencini's egregious errors and inconsistencies are due to a lack of intellectual capacity. It may be that he is of normal intelligence but lacks the moral capacity to follow the law as laid out in the Italian Constitution and CCP, and the ECHR. Another possibility is that he needs a refresher course in those three sources of Italian jurisprudence.
I'm still waiting for Machiavelli to let us know what the other sources of Italian jurisprudence are for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law. IIUC, he indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

ETA: Note that every appeal petition, whether by the defense or by the prosecution, as particularly in Italy as in any other country where there are appeals, includes a listing of presumed errors by a court and its judge(s).

Also, consider that an Italian assize court consists of two professional judges, who presumably went to college and law school, and a panel of lay judges, who are not subjected to any selection process for ability or lack of bias (unlike a US jury) and, for the appeal court, need only have a high-school level education. They are likely merely followers of the professional judges.

1st highlight - Numbers, All of these explanations are an effort to hold onto the idea that the judges are trying to be honest and fair in their roles as judge, that is, to accept their mistakes as honest mistakes. I disagree. I think the convicting judges simply had an intent to achieve a conviction, and the motivation and reasonings are just window dressing to gussy up a pre-determined conclusion.

That all the evidence shows that Amanda and Raf are actually innocent, because they never left Raf's apartment, leads these judicial efforts into obvious and glaring contradictions in their written 'motivations'. This is because they are arguing an obvious lie.

When the methods applied at trial or developed in the judges motivations conflict with law and procedure, whether Italian or ECHR, this is simply the degree to which the formal law and rules of court, as designed to attempt to keep trials on a fair track, detect events that are out of the ordinary, flags that there may be a problem.

Indeed, we could consider violations of the defendants rights as a 'presumptive' test of the court's prejudice and bias in favor of guilt. BUt what type of "confirmatory" test is available to us, other than perhaps, "the laugh test", or "the smell test"?
2nd highlight - Not sure if you meant this, but lay judges in the first instance trial in Italy only need to have completed middle school (8th grade), presumably with success. In the appeal level trial, the lay judges require the additional and special educational attainment of having completed High School.

The HS graduation rate in the US is far 100%, but don't know what it is off hand. But on the other hand, I hear the literacy rate in Iraq under Saddam, was 98%.

Italy showed it was capable of holding a fair trial under judge Hellman. That Amanda and Raf were ever charged, and that Mignini has not been disbarred on put on trial for his mad ravings and legal adventures is an indication of a backwards society in moral collapse.

 

[Dan O.]

The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative.
There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method.

It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

There is no requirement for any guilter to leave their make believe land and join the real world.

In the real world we don't just make claims that something is true, we offer measurable observations of that truth. The guilters jump straight to the claims without backing them up with evidence because events in their make believe world cannot be observed by others and there are no measurements.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Mach,
Good morning.

Glad you're here so I can ask a question of you.

Remember the discussion on Italian court jurisprudence? Well, I never did quite understand what all the sources of the jurisprudence are. Could you help inform me?

To be more precise, what are the other sources of Italian jurisprudence for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law? IIUC, you indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

The main source of Italian jurisprudence is the Supreme Court of Cassation sentences, in particular the United Sections Rulings (this is normally what is meant by jurisprudence).
As for Constitutional matters, the sources are the Constitutional Court rulings and the Ordinary Laws.

 

[Numbers]

The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative.There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method.
It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

1. Single pieces of evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, are more or less probative (probative meaning having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence). If evidence is not probative to some degree, it is irrelevant information. One cannot add up irrelevant bits of information to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless maybe Italy has some special rules or jurisprudence about that?

2. Evidence must have a certain degree of reliability or validity. This is especially true for technically-derived information which is based on scientific principles and relatively complex treatments or processes to give a result. Examples of such types of evidence are demonstrations confirming a stain is blood or demonstrations that purport to identify a person through obtaining a DNA STR profile.